View Single Post
  #187  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 1:49 PM
Londonee Londonee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Fitler Square (via London)
Posts: 1,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartphilly View Post
Yep

The actual value of that lot is at present value and operating as a parking lot and should be assessed as the value of land/lot as a parking lot, and not what it can hypothetically be at a future point in time. In other words, it is being discounted for its use as a parking lot. You can not completely dismissed the parking lot piece and treat the lot with its use as a parking lot for something else. Once a developer is will to pay x amount over actual assessed value, the developer's intent of that parking lot/land is telling. The developer is not paying x many times over (sometimes in the millions as you said), to operate it again as a surface parking lot. So here the discount doesn't apply, because the intent of selling the lot to a developer is for the developer to put some kind of building that they think is worth what the surround buildings are worth or at least command some premium rental price per square footage. So until that changes, i don't believe the guy operating the parking lot should be assess some tax percentage in the millions because someone could potentially be paying for it for some other use in the future that is not a parking lot.

We differ on this, but I am not incorrect. We have a difference of opinion of how this stuff is assessed. I'm sure a case could be made to increase the valuation when it is truly under assessed, like comparing the assessment of another surface lot a block or two away. Plus where would the guy operating that parking get enough revenue to pay taxes if assessment was in the millions and also have enough to pay his employees and other overhead. It doesn't make sense. Many small businesses, sole proprietors, family businesses would be forced to close their business if done this way. Even in Manhattan, you still see small businesses and mom/pop in close proximity to the pricey neighborhood when it is held generationally. If they apply the value of the land to a high-rise on top of it, you wouldn't have anything except big corporations that could afford the rent or that if it becomes unprofitable to run a business there and it eventually moves. And, maybe that is the direction it will eventually go because big corporations can do it because the guy retires and want to sell for maximum profit.
So why does this make sense from the city's standpoint? I get that you are enjoying this mental exercise of parsing statements into justifications, but in a cash strapped city allowing the practice of your big-time moneymakers to earn you effectively zilch is almost criminal. Especially with reasonably popular solutions at hand. Besides, the notion that the city assessors have accurately determined the value of the land in the first place to bolster your argument is laughable. For the record, I don't think this should apply to areas outside of greater CC.

As an aside, this lot is owned by Michael Singer Real estate. It was taxed at $600k pre AVI in 2013 (which is, again, criminal). It jumped to $2.6mm in 2014 and jumped again to $4.2mm last year. My guess is that another jump in the next few years will push these guys to sell.
Reply With Quote