|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When it comes to laying out the rules for Mountain View’s new rent control policies, everyone seems to agree on only one thing — it is going be a tremendously difficult and thankless job.
On Monday night, the city’s nascent Rental Housing Committee got its first taste of the big stakes and the dicey decisions that lie ahead. The committee took its first action to cap the rents increases on thousands of local apartments for the upcoming year. Starting in September, that limit will be 3.4 percent.
At the meeting, an audience dominated by landlords decried the new rent cap as well as the very existence of Mountain View’s new rent control program, dubbed the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act. Speaker after speaker described how their livelihoods would be devastated. They pointed to rising permit fees, property taxes, contractor wages, utility bills and even the cost of appliances to demonstrate that they need flexibility on raising rents.
“What exactly do I tell the bank who collects my property taxes every month?” said landlord David Avny. “Do I tell them from the rent rollback that I don’t have the money? Do I ask them to be supportive?”
The questions were rhetorical, but they touched on what many committee members saw as the big problem they were being asked to tackle. The city is instituting a one-size-fits-all program for fixing rent increases, but the five-member panel of volunteers has to figure out how much leeway is needed.
At least one big decision was a no-brainer. Many landlords urged the committee to grant them the maximum rent increase under the new law — 5 percent. But the city attorney reminded the committee members that their hands were tied. Under the measure’s language, their only option was to set the 2017 annual rent adjustment to 3.4 percent, as indicated by the local Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Less simple was city’s staff suggestion that the committee could also throw in a second, retroactive rent increase for the period between October 2015 and February 2016. The new rent control law, which was passed by voters as Measure V on the November ballot, included a rollback to October 2015 rates for eligible apartments. But city staffers said the four-month period from October to February was not reflected in the 2017 rent adjustment since they used CPI data for the 12 months that ran from February 2016 to February 2017. Such a supplemental increase would be meager, since Bay Area CPI increases from this period rose by only 0.6 percent.
Still, the idea of a second rent increase spurred a warning from tenants’ advocates. Attorneys with the Stanford Community Law Clinic said the rent control measure explicitly prohibited the city from tacking on increases for prior years and said it would not pass legal muster.
It was just one of the issues that the committee discussed but refrained from deciding on. Even more complicated, the committee members delved into how they should define a “fair return standard,” the formula they would use on a case-by-case basis to determine if individual landlords could justify levying an increase beyond the standard amount. This legal concept has quite a history.
For landlords, this topic was a big deal since it provides one of the only ways to petition for higher rents beyond the CPI increases. It seemed like every landlord who spoke had his or her own tale of how expenses were ballooning.
City staff and the city’s outside attorneys tried to lay out a menu of options for gauging a landlord’s profits as compared to expenses. Under this system, if landlords could prove the standard CPI hike wasn’t enough to cover the costs or profitability of a particular apartment property, they could petition the Rental Housing Committee for a higher rent increase. Maintenance costs could be added into this calculation, but Mountain View’s rent control measure explicitly prohibits landlords from including expenses from capital improvements and debt service.
It was high school-level math, but it felt like a graduate seminar in political science as the fledgling committee discussed the issue.
“There’s an internal contradiction here: rent control is below market, but landlords are supposed to get a fair rate of return,” said committee member Tom Means. “So where’s the optimal point for figuring this out?”
The committee wasn’t scheduled to make any decisions on the fair rate of return until June 8. But members warned they would probably need more time. Before making any decision, committee member Matthew Grunwald asked city staff to gather input from tenants and landlords, and everyone agreed to table the issue until then. The city’s affordable housing planner, Anky van Deursen, said she would try to set up stakeholder meetings and a submission form for written comments before the committee’s next meeting on June 8.
It’s not at all surprising that it’s incredibly difficult to circumvent the market for the correct pricing for something.
Please pick up a copy of F. A. Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” for an explanation.
I find it ridiculous that voters can take away other people’s property, keep working to get this law declared unconstitutional!!!!!!
I’m not a supporter of rent control, but I can understand why it passed. Year after year, rent has gone up exorbitantly in all apartments.. from the roach motel quality buildings to the new luxury buildings. Homeowners and landlords (and especially investors) are complaining because of x, y, z, etc reasons. I don’t think their points are invalid.
However, when most voting citizens are renters and you block any form of real relief to them, what did you expect to happen? You kick a man enough, and he’ll fight back. This is common sense folks. You can complain as much as you want, but you’re not going to get them to back down when all your public opinions and actions come off as extremely selfish and greedy to these renters. In fact, all you’re doing is energizing them to fight you harder.
“Please pick up a copy of F. A. Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” for an explanation.”
Seriously?
Hayek was the notorious example of an academic (or in this case, “academic”) using one example to provide a universal explanation. The problem with is that using Austria-Hungary in the 1910’s does NOT explain economic activity anywhere else in the world.
This is the end of rent control. With the Buena Vista trailer park fiasco and rent control going in in Mountain View this will be the premier study in economics. I knocked rent control out of Capitola (all this is up on the internet) and I’m gong to knock it out of California. I’m waiting for the Mt. View/Palo Alto online to put up my blog. It should mean increased ads for them especially real estate ads. Because of the high educational level in Silicon Valley there’s an awareness of basic economics probably unsurpassed. With Mountain View’s city council except for one socialist against rent control it should be easy. The biggest scandal of all is with mobile home parks which involve the greatest land swindle (dollar wise) in American history. Talk about a great lesson plan and an incredible increase in wealth from throwing rent control out of California. I’ve been in touch with Governor Brown and he knows. No funding for “affordable (subsidized) housing” until things are cleared up. I’ll explain in my blogs how rent control can be defeated immediately, it’s only been done thousands of times throughout all of history.
George Drysdale land economist and social studies teacher
Wow … am speechless but can still type — SO, uhhhh, George??? Quit drinking the KoolAid … and get those meds adjusted …
To say that establiching a universally fair control of rents is difficult is a huge understatement, but something fair needs to happen, and it involves controlling market behavior. The free market depends on need vs supply. If everyone wants carrots, first the price of carrots will go up, then some persons will plant more carrots or find a less expensive way to do so, and the price will go down until there is balance. That doesn’t work for real estate, since you can’t grow more land or make it cheaper, so now what?
Well, you try to control, but what’s fair to the small apartment owner is different from what’s fair for Prometheus, same thing’s true for older versus newer buildings. AND, don’t forget greed—more money for the building owners, more cheap apartments for the renters.
Probably the only reasonable answer (unless one doesn’t care about the economy’s workings) is subsidies, paid directly to tenants to compensate for increasing generalised market forces. The amounts of the subsidies would have to be secret (not sure how you do that) so that property owners don’t raise rents because of the subidies, and based both on the market trend and the financial position of the tenant.
Of course, this would require large tax increases—VERY unlikely to pass.
A hard look at building codes, ordinances, and densities would also need to be undertaken (the State has tried to do that—very timidly, with Granny Suite rules), but San Francisco is busily telling it citizens they can’t rent out as they wish.
So—all you people yelling out there, whether owners or renters–there IS a problem. Let’s see YOU try to fix it.
Former MtnView Resident (40 + years)
I got out, now living in Reno (no State Income taxe, No income tax on my Calif Retirement money)
WHY would any caring person continue living in the Brown State???? Taxes, regulations, Zoning, ets.
Wake up folks… It is NUTS to stay in the Peoples Republic of Californit
bye George
So you’re living in Reno. Whoopee.
Ask us if we care.
And stop watching Fox “News,” it’s bad for you.
I can’t imagine how bad my life would have to get to be happy about living in Reno.
Odd that this rent control issue brings out so many irrelevant comments and concerns. It’s not a big economic issue with the way it was done in Mountain View according to state law governing rent control. Rent control has been established in many areas of the state for 30+ years. In Capitola, they tried to apply it to Mobile Home parks which is a different kettle of fish. Mountain View mobile home parks are not covered by the rent control. No doubt many of them will end up being redeveloped with the residents kicked out. That’s sad. But meanwhile, they are not lacking any pain from the constant space rent increases. In fact, no development project will be stopped by rent control. That’s grounds to end a lease, if there is a new building placed on the land. You actually have an economic benefit to the rent control because it incentivizes redevelopment, not that we really need a lot of redevelopment with all the new apartment buildings going up anyway. It seems to me that this modest benefit will be entirely helpful overall.
3 comments:
First, I find it convenient that the City cannot seem to playback their “recording” of the RHC meeting on Monday. Their current playback at this time is blank, no sound or video. I think it is because there was a lot of behavior that those acting out are trying to prevent the public to observe. Or worse can prove those made false statements to the RHC during that meeting.
Second, my landlord made categorically false claims in his comments to the committee. He claimed he was paying taxes on the purchased price of my apartment building. But if you go to the Santa Clara Tax website you can see instead of paying property taxes on a building value at $4.95 Million, it is based on the appraised value of $1.17 Million. So he overstated his property taxes by 4.95/1.17 or 4.25 times his actual taxes. Yes he did pay a one-time Mountain View Transference Tax, based on the price he CHOSE to buy the property so he did pay $4.95 Million/ $5,000 Times $1.65 when he bought the property. Which comes to $1,633.50. BUT THAT WAS HIS CHOICE TO BUY THE PROPERTY HE WAS NOT FORCED TO DO SO AT THAT PRICE.
Third, one landlord irately complained that they paid $80,000. for joining the CAA in the court case in Santa Clara Court which became an entire failure. There was plenty of free legal information out there that would have indicated that this was a poor decision on that landlord’s part. I understand the landlord’s position, however it appeared that landlord got very bad legal advice, and one could consider it so poor that she should be considering a legal complaint against her attorney. But this landlord instead complained that the tenants got “free” attorneys. However, this is NOT TRUE.
For example, the Stanford Law Clinic is paid by a grant and/or tax credits to the school, issued by a combination of federal, state, and/or county. These grants and/or tax credits are from taxes paid by the tenants. Those grants and/or tax credits were designed to provide legal counselling to the public as a result. Thus any citizen in a situation where they are confronted with need of legal representation for almost any legal problem, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, does have a right to their assistance.
@people here can’t look outside their bubble
Except when landlords effected by the law sell or redevelop their properties and reduce the number of renters.
My landlord said he was paying property taxes at $5,156 per month at the time mark approximately 11:00 to 14:00 into the meeting. I am about to disclose public records you can look up from the SCC Tax Website
However, the Santa Clara County Tax bill is
This is the SCC Tax information:
Secured Taxes Details Print
Parcel Number 158-04-034
Suffix 00
Property Address 184 CENTRE ST MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94041
Tax Rate Area 005-000
Description Values Tax Rate Tax Amount
Land $494,778.00
Improvements $676,201.00
Total Land and Improvements $1,170,979.00 .0086% $100.70
Personal Property $0.00
Less Home Owner’s Exemption $0.00
Other Exemption $0.00
Total Value $1,170,979.00 1.1381% $13,326.92
Special Assessments (Detailed Below) $608.10
Total Taxes $14,035.72
Special Assessments
Code Assessment Name Contact Number Amount
856 MV-WHISMAN Measure C 650-526-3547 $339.00
848 Mosquito-Vector Asmt #2 800-273-5167 $25.74
847 Mosquito-Vector Control Assmt 800-273-5167 $25.40
880 SCVWD FLOOD – Northwest 408 630-2810 $86.10
728 SCVWD Safe, Clean Water 408 630-2810 $131.86
This is a yearly cost of $14,035.72 so monthly his bill is divided by 12 so it comes to $1,169.64 a month
The history is:
Fiscal Year APN Suffix Installment Tax Amount Additional Total Payment
Number Charges Paid Posted
2017 00 1 $7,017.86 $0.00 $7,017.86 12/08/2016
2017 00 2 $7,017.86 $0.00 $7,017.86 04/03/2017
2016 00 1 $6,820.47 $0.00 $6,820.47 10/19/2015
2016 00 2 $6,820.47 $0.00 $6,820.47 02/25/2016
My landlord clearly stated his monthly tax bill was $5,156, but the monthly bill is actually $1,169.64.
This was definitely NOT THE TRUTH.
He did have to pay taxes when he purchased the property with Mountain View. But that is not a monthly permanent cost, he paid it during the purchase of the property. That was:
“Tax Rate & Levy
A tax is imposed when any lands or other real property, located in the City of Mountain View, are sold or otherwise conveyed to purchaser(s) and the value of the consideration exceeds one hundred dollars ($100.00).
This tax is levied at the rate of one dollar and sixty-five cents ($1.65) for each five hundred dollars ($500.00) or less of the value of the consideration.
The complete details of the tax are contained in Chapter 29 Article V of the Mountain View City Code.”( http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fasd/tax/conveyance.asp)
Thus his transfer tax was $4,950,000/5000 times $1.65 tax which computes to $1,633.50, in a one-time charge.
This misrepresentation cannot be due to mistake. He was just wanting to exaggerate his problems in a public forum.
@TheBusinessMan you make good points but I want to let you know that your landlord is most likely telling the truth. Don’t worry though, nobody can blame you for going to the tax collector website and arriving at your conclusion. I remember getting my first tax bill at the previous owner’s rate and hoping that I somehow slipped through the cracks … I didn’t.
Property tax is paid in arrears: the tax you pay in FY 2017 is for FY 2016. Because of this, it can take 2-3 payment cycles for the new adjusted basis to be entered into the tax rolls. However, a supplemental assessment is levied. There is a calculator here: https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/online-services/supplemental-calculator
So the owner is currently the “normal” assessment at the previous owner’s rate, plus a supplemental assessment at the $5M rate. A good rule of thumb for taxes is 1.25%, which would be about $62.5k/yr or $5200/mo. So what your landlord says sounds accurate.
@TheBusinessMan you make good points but I want to let you know that your landlord is most likely telling the truth. Don’t worry though, nobody can blame you for going to the tax collector website and arriving at your conclusion. I remember getting my first tax bill at the previous owner’s rate and hoping that I somehow slipped through the cracks … I didn’t.
Property tax is paid in arrears: the tax you pay in FY 2017 is for FY 2016. Because of this, it can take 2-3 payment cycles for the new adjusted basis to be entered into the tax rolls. However, a supplemental assessment is levied. There is a calculator here: Web Link
However, this property was purchased in Feb 2016. I presented a history showing that the landlord during this time simply does not pay $5,000. in property taxes. Given that the current tax is still not based on the “purchased” price as described earlier but is in fact based on an “assessment” value. It appears that the purchase price and the “assessment” values are simply NOT the same.
However I cannot find the documentation regarding the county assessment process.
But here is the info I can get from the assessment record:
Document No: 23223559
Document Type: GRANT DEED
Transfer Date: 2/19/2016
Tax Default Date: N/A
VALUE INFORMATION (Assessed Information as of 6/30/2016)
Real Property; Land: $494,778, Improvements: $676,201, and Total: $1,170,979
Business; Fixtures: $0, Structure: $0, Personal Property: $0, and Total: $0
Exemptions; Homeowner: $0, Other: $0, and Total: $0
Net Assessed Value: Total: $1,170,979
NOTICE THE TRANSFERENCE WAS ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON FEB 19, 2016. So even after the sale of the property the assessment was reassessed on June 30, 2016. This was 4 months after the purchase. You would think that this assessment would have required the purchase price to be added to the assessment value at that time.
But from what I understand, the assessment process actually pools the properties into like-groups. That is intended to prevent “purchase price” tax overcharges. Similar to like insurance companies creating cost and risk pools. This creates much less “unfair” over taxation simply because a person overpays for the purchase of a property. And on top of that, a person can petition for an assessment reduction if the assessment is clearly over the market values of similar properties in the area.
So, if you thought I was not aware of this, you are being clearly educated that I understand the process more than you think.
I tried entering in the information into that website, but you did not note the disclaimer that says:
“THE CALCULATION IS AN ESTIMATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AND ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES ONLY. This estimate may vary significantly from the actual supplemental taxes due if another change in ownership or new construction has occurred within the calendar year. It does not include special fees, ‘assessments’, or taxes, etc.
Supplemental taxes are in addition to the regular annual tax bills. Like annual tax bills, payment may be made in two installments. Supplemental bills are mailed by the Tax Collector’s Office directly to the property owner. Unlike the regular tax bill, they are not typically paid out of a banks impound account. The property owner is responsible for the supplemental bill(s) and, in the event of an impound account, should verify with the lender regarding who should make the actual payment.
If a Homeowners’ Exemption or Veterans’ Exemption is applied to the supplemental, the actual taxes due may be less than the estimate provided.
If the supplemental tax estimate is a refund, the Tax Collector will generate a supplemental tax refund. Like the supplemental tax bill, the supplemental refund will be mailed directly to the new property owner.
THIS ESTIMATE IS PROVIDED AS A SERVICE BY SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO ASSIST THE TAXPAYER IN PLANNING FOR HIS/HER SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES. IT IS NOT A LEGAL NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES DUE. The application was developed by the Assessor’s Office and the County’s Information System’s Division.
If you have additional questions about supplemental assessment, please email the Assessor’s Office or the tax collector at scctax@tax.sccgov.org
DISCLAIMER
Information is calculated using the most current tax rate and assessment roll information available. In many instances, calculations will be based on prior year information. For example calculations between January and May will be based upon tax rates from the prior August and Assessment information from the prior July. The calculations provided are an estimate only. When paying supplemental taxes, a property owner must use the amount provided on the mailed supplemental bill.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ESTIMATOR WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A RELIABLE ESTIMATE FOR THESE ATYPICAL SITUATIONS. The most common are:
More than one change in ownership has occurred in a calendar year.
A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AND NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS OCCURRED IN A CALENDAR YEAR.”
And if you bother to explore further you can find this information:
“Two Year Supplemental Calculation
Two Year Supplemental Calculation: Transaction Date: 02/2016
Billing Period: portion of 2016/2017 Fiscal Year from 7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017
Estimated Purchase Price $4,950,000
Net Assessed Value (2016-2017) — $1,170,979 (Subtraction)
———————-
Net Supplemental Assessed Value $3,779,021
Tax Rate (2016-2017)I X 0.011467 (Multiplication)
Estimated Supplemental Tax For 2016/2017 Fiscal Year $43,334
i Tax rates do not include special assessments. Tax rate used is most current rate available.”
The simple fact is this is just a simulation, it does not actually deal with the reassessment process. I am certain that if the landlord uses his right for reassessment based on inspection of the property and the like-kind property in Mountain View, his assessed values will be MUCH less than the simulated value. Of course it depends on the landlord KNOWING that this is just a simulation.
Any home owner or property owner should never simply accept a simulation. They have a right to demand a specific assessment based on inspection of the property and the “pooling” factor, because the property assessor would clearly want to avoid over taxation via “assessment bias” which is occurring in this website simulation.
Looks like the 11 unit 184 Centre Street apartments are for sale again… this time at $6,5 million. Too bad the owner in Feb 2016 only got $4.995 Million…. So who says Rent Control causes properties to lose value?
Posted by ResidentSince1982
a resident of another community
32 minutes ago
ResidentSince1982 is a registered user.
Looks like the 11 unit 184 Centre Street apartments are for sale again… this time at $6,5 million. Too bad the owner in Feb 2016 only got $4.995 Million…. So who says Rent Control causes properties to lose value?
Where are you seeing that the property is for sale again?
Posted by Apple1709
a resident of Blossom Valley
44 minutes ago
Apple1709 is a registered user.
“For the June 2016 tax bill, the owner would pay 8 months of the old price (06/15 – 02/16) and 4 at the new price (02/16 – 06/16). I’m not proclaiming to be an expert, but I’ve been through the process before. The tax collector will bill based on the rate at the beginning of the year (old assessment) and issue a supplemental.
In San Mateo and Santa Clara it is routine to be assessed at your purchase price. There is a mechanism for challenging your base rate year if you disagree. Otherwise it is locked in via Prop 13. I don’t know about any pooling that you mention.”
There is a major assumption that purchasing prices dictate tax base, this is not correct. If you were to read the following link
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/aam2003final.pdf)
You will find that there is great room to get your property adjusted based on a great deal of rules and evaluation processes. I find it amazing that you aren’t aware of it.
It is described here:
VALUATION METHODS
Determination of full value involves judgment, and the law recognizes that there is no single acceptable appraisal approach or method which must be employed to determine fair market value. The most common indicators of value are the purchase price of the subject property, sales prices of comparable properties, capitalization of the income stream (rent) produced by the property, and the cost to replace the property in its present condition. For purposes of establishing fair market value of recently purchased real property (other than possessory interests), CALIFORNIA LAW ESTABLISHES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.(164) HOWEVER, THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT MARKET INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT VALUE.(165)
(164) Rule 2.
(165) Dennis v. County of Santa Clara (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1019.
The Dennis case determined:
Following plaintiffs’ purchase of real property in San Jose, the Assessor of Santa Clara County revalued the property for tax purposes in an amount substantially higher than the purchase price. After the assessment appeals board denied plaintiffs’ application for changed assessment, plaintiffs filed this action to nullify the board’s decision. THE SUPERIOR COURT SET ASIDE THE BOARD’S DECISION, FINDING THAT THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PURCHASE PRICE, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY. The County of Santa Clara and City of San Jose appeal. Plaintiffs cross-appeal with respect to attorney fees. [215 Cal. App. 3d 1023]
WE CONCLUDE FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.
Discussion
We confront two issues on appeal. First, we must determine whether the assessor was bound to adopt plaintiffs’ purchase price as the fair market value of the property or whether he properly relied upon the market data and income methods of appraisal. Second, assuming that the assessor properly relied upon those methods, we must determine whether he properly applied the methods to this case.
We disagree with the trial court. We conclude that the purchase price may play a significant role in the reassessment of property upon its sale BUT THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING AND NOT NECESSARILY THE END OF THE INQUIRY.
Application of Valuation Method
[9a] The record contains substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of value based on the market data method of valuation.
“In estimating value … the assessor shall consider one or more of the following, as may be appropriate for the property being appraised: [¶] (A) THE PRICE OR PRICES AT WHICH THE PROPERTY AND COMPARABLE PROPERTIES HAVE RECENTLY SOLD (THE COMPARATIVE SALES APPROACH).” (18 Cal. Code Regs., § 3.) “[M]ARKET DATA ON RECENT SALES OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED AND COMPARABLE PROPERTIES, WHEN SUCH DATA IS AVAILABLE, IS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY OF ARRIVING AT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. [CITATIONS.]” (Guild Wineries & Distilleries v. County of Fresno, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d at p. 187.)”
This information confirms my opinion that the assessment value can and should be reassessed based on comparable properties sold in the area or market data for like-kind in Mountain View. Simply enough, the purchase price is not a valid bases for the tax assessment value. Meaning any property like mine that has only 11 units with only the basic amenities, in Mountain View sold in this time frame would be applicable. NOT THE PRICE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED. A good business person would simply make sure the assessment is accurate so that they are not over-taxed. IT WOULD BE THE BURDEN OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH THE LOCAL MARKET VALUE AND SHOW PROOF OF ITS VALIDITY.
There is a major assumption that purchasing prices dictate tax base, this is not correct. If you were to read the following link
( http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/aam2003final.pdf)
You will find that there is great room to get your property adjusted based on a great deal of rules and evaluation processes. I find it amazing that you aren’t aware of it.
It is described here:
VALUATION METHODS
Determination of full value involves judgment, and the law recognizes that there is no single acceptable appraisal approach or method which must be employed to determine fair market value. The most common indicators of value are the purchase price of the subject property, sales prices of comparable properties, capitalization of the income stream (rent) produced by the property, and the cost to replace the property in its present condition. For purposes of establishing fair market value of recently purchased real property (other than possessory interests), CALIFORNIA LAW ESTABLISHES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE IS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.(164) HOWEVER, THE PRESUMPTION MAY BE OVERCOME IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT MARKET INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT VALUE.(165)
(164) Rule 2.
(165) Dennis v. County of Santa Clara (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1019.
The Dennis case determined:
Following plaintiffs’ purchase of real property in San Jose, the Assessor of Santa Clara County revalued the property for tax purposes in an amount substantially higher than the purchase price. After the assessment appeals board denied plaintiffs’ application for changed assessment, plaintiffs filed this action to nullify the board’s decision. THE SUPERIOR COURT SET ASIDE THE BOARD’S DECISION, FINDING THAT THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS THE AMOUNT OF PLAINTIFFS’ PURCHASE PRICE, AND ENTERED JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY. The County of Santa Clara and City of San Jose appeal. Plaintiffs cross-appeal with respect to attorney fees. [215 Cal. App. 3d 1023]
WE CONCLUDE FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW THAT THE JUDGMENT MUST BE REVERSED.
Discussion
We confront two issues on appeal. First, we must determine whether the assessor was bound to adopt plaintiffs’ purchase price as the fair market value of the property or whether he properly relied upon the market data and income methods of appraisal. Second, assuming that the assessor properly relied upon those methods, we must determine whether he properly applied the methods to this case.
We disagree with the trial court. We conclude that the purchase price may play a significant role in the reassessment of property upon its sale BUT THAT THE PURCHASE PRICE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING AND NOT NECESSARILY THE END OF THE INQUIRY.
Application of Valuation Method
[9a] The record contains substantial evidence to support the board’s finding of value based on the market data method of valuation.
“In estimating value … the assessor shall consider one or more of the following, as may be appropriate for the property being appraised: [¶] (A) THE PRICE OR PRICES AT WHICH THE PROPERTY AND COMPARABLE PROPERTIES HAVE RECENTLY SOLD (THE COMPARATIVE SALES APPROACH).” (18 Cal. Code Regs., § 3.) “[M]ARKET DATA ON RECENT SALES OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED AND COMPARABLE PROPERTIES, WHEN SUCH DATA IS AVAILABLE, IS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY OF ARRIVING AT THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. [CITATIONS.]” (Guild Wineries & Distilleries v. County of Fresno, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d at p. 187.)”
This information confirms my opinion that the assessment value can and should be reassessed based on comparable properties sold in the area or market data for like-kind in Mountain View. Simply enough, the purchase price is not a valid bases for the tax assessment value. Meaning any property like mine that has only 11 units with only the basic amenities, in Mountain View sold in this time frame would be applicable. NOT THE PRICE OF PROPERTY PURCHASED. A good business person would simply make sure the assessment is accurate so that they are not over taxed. IT WOULD BE THE BURDEN OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH THE LOCAL MARKET VALUE AND SHOW PROOF OF ITS VALIDITY.
Apple1709
I used the property tax simulation, but realize it cannot be relied upon, the simulation clearly states:
“THE CALCULATION IS AN ESTIMATE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AND ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES ONLY. This estimate may vary significantly from the actual supplemental taxes due if another change in ownership or new construction has occurred within the calendar year. It does not include special fees, ‘assessments’, or taxes, etc.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ESTIMATOR WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A RELIABLE ESTIMATE FOR THESE ATYPICAL SITUATIONS. The most common are:
A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP AND NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS OCCURRED IN A CALENDAR YEAR.”
The simple fact is this is just a simulation, it does not actually deal with the reassessment process. I am certain that if the landlord uses his right for reassessment based on inspection of the property and the like-kind property in Mountain View, his assessed values will be MUCH less than the simulated value. Of course it depends on the landlord KNOWING that this is just a simulation.
Any home owner or property owner should never simply accept a simulation. They have a right to demand a specific assessment based on inspection of the property and the “pooling” factor, because the property assessor would clearly want to avoid over taxation via “assessment bias” which is occurring in this website simulation.
2 comments:
Second, my landlord made categorically false claims in his comments to the committee at time mark 11:00-14:00. He claimed he was paying taxes on the purchased price of my apartment building. But if you go to the Santa Clara Tax website you can see instead of paying property taxes on a building value at $4.95 Million, it is based on the appraised value of $1.17 Million. So he overstated his property taxes by 4.95/1.17 or 4.25 times his actual taxes. Yes he did pay a one-time Mountain View Transference Tax, based on the price he CHOSE to buy the property so he did pay $4.95 Million/ $5,000 Times $1.65 when he bought the property. Which comes to $1,633.50. BUT THAT WAS HIS CHOICE TO BUY THE PROERTY HE WAS NOT FORCED TO DO SO AT THAT PRICE.
Third, one landlord irately complained that they paid $80,000. for joining the CAA in the court case in Santa Clara Court which became an entire failure. There was plenty of free legal information out there that would have indicated that this was a poor decision on that landlord’s part. I understand the landlord’s position, however it appeared that landlord got very bad legal advice, and one could consider it so poor that she should be considering a legal complaint against her attorney. But this landlord instead complained that the tenants got “free” attorneys. However, this is NOT TRUE.
For example, the Stanford Law Clinic is paid by a grant and/or tax credits to the school, issued by a combination of federal, state, and/or county. These grants and/or tax credits are from taxes paid by the tenants. Those grants and/or tax credits were designed to provide legal counselling to the public as a result. Thus any citizen in a situation where they are confronted with need of legal representation for almost any legal problem, AS LONG AS IT IS NOT COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, does have a right to their assistance.
Babar,
Your carrot theory doesn’t make any sense. Free market is the only way things will seek their fair balance. You can’t pass laws to benefit one group while hurting another. Most of the landlord community is made up of hard working mom and pop owners that took big risks when buying their properties, they worked on them, poured money into them and made many sacrifices to keep them running. If now there is a win fall in the real estate market because the tech giants created a wealth of jobs that outpaced the housing supply so be it! That is what the American dream is all about. I am pretty sure all the google and facebook employees (the bulk of my tenants) would have a fit to have a ceiling put on where their stocks could go? If you let the free market rule, the tech companies that created the issue of over population and that are making millions from it will see the wisdom of paying their employees more money to keep them local. If people can no longer afford to live in Mountain View there are certainly more affordable options in other towns they can move to. And guess what, if they move, rents come down until they seek a balance!
Rent control unfairly hurts the hard working landlord community and only temporarily benefits the current tenants. They benefit weather or not they even need the assistance. Most of my tenants are dual income households each well into the 6 figure incomes. Now if were talking about the janitors and school teachers that benefit our community as a whole to by living here then that is a community issue that needs to be shouldered by the whole community not just the landlords…
Bart,
What I find as a business person insulting is the premise that IF one works hard and EARNS their paycheck, that some property owner is ENTITLED to a portion of that money. THAT IS NOT BUSINESS. THAT IS FEUDALISM. ITS IS DEFINED AS:
Merriam-Webster Logo SINCE 1828
feudalism
1: the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of LORD TO VASSAL (see vassal 1) WITH ALL LAND HELD IN FEE (see fee 1) and as CHIEF CHARACTERISTICS HOMAGE, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship (see wardship 1), and forfeiture (see forfeiture 1)(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feudalism)
Thus the tenant is treated like a VASSAL of the landlord or LORD, and the LORD determines that the earnings of the VASSAL are due to the LORDS’ efforts. This is simply not true.
The LORDS’ feel entitled to a proportion of earnings from the VASSALS’. Isn’t that a tax? More specifically, is this is a PRIVATE tax? Isn’t private taxation not allowed in the US? This attitude is what caused the “VASSALS’” of Mountain View to use their political rights and responsibilities to act to create the new rules of LORD and VASSAL relationship. Thus the CSFRA was born.
The fact is if this was not the prevailing practice, the CSFRA would be unnecessary. There would have been a mutually beneficial relationship between the LORDS’ and VASSALS’.
The community cannot be expected to bear the burden of the LORDS’ misbehaviors, misconducts, or misjudgments, under Alan Greenspan’s MORAL HAZARD doctrine, that rests solely on the investors or owners of a business. Please do not insult us in claiming that it is the VASSALS’ fault the LORDS’ are in this situation?
The LORDS’ must step up and solve their own problems. Under Costa Hawkins, they were given unfettered freedom of making profit since 1995 to increase market supply and failed to do so. The rules regarding land zoning and development did not change for more than 100 years except for environmental impact and pollution cleanups. So claiming that “regulations” are impairing the private sector in increasing supply is simply not the truth.
What is happening is the LORDS’ demand tribute and gifts in order to develop by the public. The public simply cannot do that, it would be viewed as a corrupt practice by the VASSALS’ and the politicians would be subject to intense criticism.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR WANTED THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF RENT REGULATIONS AND GOT IT BUT IT IN TURN IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS FAILURE TO COME THORUGH WITH AMPLE SUPPLY.
Business Man
your are sadly mistaken. Your comment: What I find as a business person insulting is the premise that IF one works hard and EARNS their paycheck, that some property owner is ENTITLED to a portion of that money.
The truth is that when you sign a contract that provides housing at the property owners expense He is certainly entitled to a portion of your paycheck. You have the choice of living close or far away from your workplace. That choice will determine the cost of your lodging. That is YOUR choice. No landlord is required to provide housing YOU feel is affordable within walking distance to your employment. Where did you ever get the idea you are entitled to that?
This entitlement mentality is unfair to those who have worked hard, taken risks, endured the ups and downs of the market and provided housing for decades. We all make choices and there are certainly natural consequences to every choice. High rent is the natural consequence of living in the middle of Silicon Valley.
Do no harm argues?
“The truth is that when you sign a contract that provides housing at the property owners expense He is certainly entitled to a portion of your paycheck. You have the choice of living close or far away from your workplace. That choice will determine the cost of your lodging. That is YOUR choice. No landlord is required to provide housing YOU feel is affordable within walking distance to your employment. Where did you ever get the idea you are entitled to that? “
I do not say I am entitled to it, but when your business is to strategically provide overpriced items alone into a market, you must be prepared for the results. The industry has planned it so that the tenants are like drivers that need gas, and the only kind of gasoline you offer and price is the 93 octane when the vehicles only need 87. If you looks at the Bay Area Government Association website reports, the industry chose to push only the products it wants to sell. This is not just in Mountain View but the entire Bay Area. Which are high end products only, thus forcing prices to be higher because of market manipulation.
“This entitlement mentality is unfair to those who have worked hard, taken risks, endured the ups and downs of the market and provided housing for decades. We all make choices and there are certainly natural consequences to every choice. High rent is the natural consequence of living in the middle of Silicon Valley.”
With all due respect, you fail to disclose the fact that Costa Hawkins prevents rent control for new buildings after 1995. Please understand this: RENT CONTROL LAWS AT THIS TIME HAS NEVER BEEN AN IMPEDIMENT IN CALIFORNIA AS LONG AS COSTA HAWKINS IS THE LAW.
And as far as tenants having the entitlement mentality, that is simply very insulting. As I pointed out earlier:
Those VASSALS’ who have worked hard and invested their own money and work to have work skills that are in reality SUPERIOR to those LORDS’, thus justifying their earnings. The LORDS’ did not provide them any assistance to the VASSALS’ achievements and abilities at any time. THUS THE VASSALS’ DO NOT OWE A DEBT TO ANY LORDS’. The LORDS’ complain that they should be ENTITLED to any earnings they wish, but they cannot base that argument on their VASSALS’ earnings. IF THEY WISH TO HAVE HIGHER EARNINGS, THEY MUST PROVIDE SUPERIOR SERVICES AND COMPETE AMONGST THEMSELVES FOR IT.
IN FACT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SKILLS AND VALUE ARE VASTLY LESS VALUABLE THAN THE WORK THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY CLAIM ARE THE “ENTITLEMENT” GROUP DO IN THE VALLEY. IN FACT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN THE BAY AREA REGARDING APARTMENTS HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE WEALTH OF THE VALLEY, IT HAS WORKED TO TAKE IT AWAY. MOST ARE OWNED BY THOSE WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY THEY OWN THE PROPERTY IN. IT IS THE “HIGH-TECH” WORKERS THAT MADE THE VALLEY AND NOT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT.
Do no harm, landlords at this time have done NOTHING to contribute regarding the increase in wealth by tenants earning it in California. THAT OCCURRED DUE TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OCCURRED DUE TO INVESTMENT IN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. The apartment industry simply has attached itself to that activity to make money.
THE APARTMENT INDUSTRY DOES NOT WORK TO ATTRACT, DEVELOP, OR SUPPORT HIGH SKILLED WORKERS AND DOES NOT EMPLOY THEM. I simply disagree with you because your claim seems to apply to the landlords and not the tenants. What you are promoting is that a person can expect THEIR SHARE of wealth earned by another WHO DID NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT SITUATION.
I hate to ask you, but is THAT the definition of an ENTITLEMENT?
@The Business Man
I’m not convinced that your gasoline analogy is accurate. Are landlords metaphorically selling expensive 93-octane gasoline to people who need only 87-octane gasoline? Perhaps a better analogy is that they are selling expensive 93-octane gasoline to the smaller number of people who need (or want) 93-octane gasoline, and letting someone else serve the needs of the people who need only 87-octane gasoline.
As long as these gasoline merchants (landlords) can find customers for all the expensive 93-octane gasoline they can sell, there is no incentive for them to sell less-profitable 87-octane gasoline.
Darin,
My example was over simple, I will try to address the situation with real information from the Bay Area Governments association own analysis
Santa Clara Rental Housing Needs Allocation results
Very Low (0-50% AMI) Income, the RHNA = 13,878, Permits Issued =3,798 Percent of RHNA Met = 27%. Low (50-80% AMI) Income, the RHNA = 9,567, Permits Issued = 2,692, Percent of RHNA Met = 28%. Moderate (80-120% AMI) Income the RHNA = 11,007, Permits Issued = 2,371, Percent of RHNA Met = 22%. Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) Income the RHNA = 25,886, Permits Issued = 35,962, Percent of RHNA Met = 139%. In Total the RHNA = 60,338, Permits Issued = 44,823, Percent of RHNA Met = 74%
So if you look at the proportion of housing in the county the Very Low Income apartments are 23%, the Low Income apartments are 16%, the Moderate Housing are 18% and the Above Moderate Income apartments are 42% in Santa Clara County.
Now if you take the gasoline example Santa Clara County, this would mean that 42% of the gas stations only sell 93 gas, 18% would sell 91 gas, 16% would sell 89 gas, and only 23% sell 87 gas. And realize once one car buys gas from the station, in this example, that station has a limited supply, and that one customer must stop buying gas from it for another to start.
That means that almost half the apartments in the valley are “Luxury”, when the report shows that is clearly NOT NEEDED. It indicates a surplus of 39%. As far as the public is concerned they cannot rent the apartment they want when there is a lack of the ones they want. Thus you have a manipulated situation.
As far as Mountain View goes it is far worse:
Very Low (0-50% AMI) Income, the RHNA = 571, Permits Issued =237 Percent of RHNA Met = 42%. Low (50-80% AMI) Income, the RHNA = 388, Permits Issued = 28, Percent of RHNA Met = 7%. Moderate (80-120% AMI) Income the RHNA = 488, Permits Issued = 4, Percent of RHNA Met = 1%. Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) Income the RHNA = 1,152 , Permits Issued = 2,387, Percent of RHNA Met = 207%. In Total the RHNA = 2,599, Permits Issued =2,656, Percent of RHNA Met = 102%
Now if you take the gasoline example for Mountain View, this would mean that 44% of the gas stations only sell 93 gas, 19% would sell 91 gas, 15% would sell 89 gas, and only 22% sell 87 gas.
This is a more realistic picture, but it still demonstrates as the Valley and the City are concerned, there is a disparity regarding the “efficient” market and the market “needs”. Under Costa Hawkins, and the real efficient market model, this simply should not have occurred at all. This demonstrates that some kind of external influence is dictating that the supply spectrum does not match with demand spectrum in any way.
Business Man
your comment:”PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SKILLS AND VALUE ARE VASTLY LESS VALUABLE THAN THE WORK THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY CLAIM ARE THE “ENTITLEMENT” GROUP DO IN THE VALLEY. IN FACT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN THE BAY AREA REGARDING APARTMENTS HAS NOT CONTRIBUTED TO THE WEALTH OF THE VALLEY..” is offensive. Many of the properties were in the area before high tech came. They provided a comfortable environment for high tech to flourish. Would you have come to the area if there were no place to live? Real Estate investment regardless of where the investor lives contributes to the tax base, the support of industry including the use of high tech, construction, employment, increased property values which help homeowners who have nothing to do with high tech. There were many economic incentives in the bay area far before high tech came.
It is quite evident that you do not understand the big picture of economics. When you punish or stifle one sector, it impacts other sectors. In order to give you lower rent, I may have to lay off or cut benefits of an employee. Perhaps you feel your needs or “rights” are more important than his.
In answer to your question, Entitlement means demanding rights, or control to something you did not buy or earn. You do not own my property, and you have not earned any right to control it, yet that is what you and those who support rent control are trying to do. Until you have to meet my payroll, paid my property taxes, paid my insurance, and provided services 24/7 to my tenants, you do not have any right to control my property.
Your logic is severely flawed and not based on reality but I can appreciate your effort to justify the mess Measure V has caused. The effort and expense could have done so much to help those who actually need and deserve affordable housing.
Do No Harm,
You said:
“In order to give you lower rent, I may have to lay off or cut benefits of an employee. Perhaps you feel your needs or “rights” are more important than his.”
It sounds like you’re going to pass the losses of your investment unto your employees? That is because you cannot pass the cost of the losses of your investment onto the tenants at this time. This is apparently your business practice to hold others financially responsible for your errors of judgement regarding losses, but you claim your entitled to all gains.
You said:
“Until you have to meet my payroll, paid my property taxes, paid my insurance, and provided services 24/7 to my tenants, you do not have any right to control my property.”
You choose to be in the business, of course you can use your Ellis Act privileges and simply leave the properties in Mountain View by selling them or letting the mortgage underwriter take them over. You may however have to sell below your expected selling price by a significant amount. There will always be another person willing to take over in a market like this. The City doesn’t need any ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER. Like all employees, you are expendable. So please do not claim landlords are critical persons in Mountain View, this is business, and NO ONE IS INDISPENSABLE.
You said:
“Real Estate investment regardless of where the investor lives contributes to the tax base, the support of industry including the use of high tech, construction, employment, increased property values which help homeowners who have nothing to do with high tech.”
Since when is an apartment investor increase home prices. The home buying market is exclusive of the apartment industry. Any business person knows this. Construction employment only occurs when building or capital improvements, I have already demonstrated that new construction has increased the inventory only 2% where the population has increased 20% in California. Thus this employment isn’t very significant. As far as supporting high tech, your investment does not build the industry, the workers do
Just realize that when tenants work for every $1 they earn they contribute many dollars of returned value to their employers. For every $1 of work that tenants do in the “tech” field, it results in as much as $1000 of worldwide value to their employers. If for example a person earns $100,000 or information security work there work can provide $100,000,000 is value to their company because they prevented a $100,000,000 loss. CAN THE LANDLORDS DEMONSTRATE THEIR WORK DOES THE SAME? What does a landlord do other than have the opportunity to make a living on the earnings of others? The landlords simply cannot claim they provided anything but a place where a person can reside while they are building the value of the Valley. It is not even possible for a landlord to claim they provide any more value than a single $1 to $1 value at most.
The landlords’ only contribution is that you have either built property before 1995 or bought property older than 1995.
If the property was built before 1986, then the typical mortgage of 31 years cost is paid and you only have property taxes and operating expenses except for capital improvements.
And if it was built between 1987 and 1995, your mortgage cost is only on the initial build price. Not on the current costs of purchasing or building the property.
Your REAL WEALTH is in the property appreciation, which you collect upon sale of the property THAT is the apartment business.
If you bought the property after it was built and after 1995, you CHOSE to take a risk in investment. THe tenants NOR the public owes you nothing but what the market will bear. That is it.