Quote:
Originally Posted by kjkam
......
How are those properties valued at $126k to$208K per acre, but residential property on the other side of the lake, had their valuations increase as much as 42% with an average value of $1.5M per acre of land?
|
For residential waterfront property, the biggest bite comes just from having that lake frontage. There is another bump from extra frontage (eg. 150' vs 100') or from extra land area, but on a per-acre basis that bump divides out to be less. Thus larger residential parcels typically would be seen as having a lower per-acre assessment than smaller ones. Just being on the lake is most important to those with the ability to buy such a property.
A good number of long-time lakefront property owners couldn't afford to buy their own properties at today's prices. The idea that the value of a property reflects ability to pay a tax on it is severely flawed. While it may be somewhat true at the time of purchase, it becomes less so as time passes. Even just retiring on a fixed income changes that. Inheriting a property bought long ago by parents and trying to keep it in the family can be rather difficult. Since high valuations of lakefront property are driven by sales to those who want it and can afford to pay, your own property tax is thus one you pay on the basis of someone else's buying power, not your own. If we were starting over in deciding how to assess taxes, and you proposed paying your share according to how much buying power someone else had, you'd be laughed out of the room.