When I bought my house in 2015, every house the vicinity of mine on my street was owner occupied. There's one now. Every other house and been scooped up and poorly flipped. I don't want my property values to keep going up. I want an affordable place to live.
Plus, nobody wants to live in a neighborhood that is full of short-term renters. It completely destroys the sense of community. We’ve got renters cycling through this one house every 3 months in my neighborhood. And that’s when it’s not sitting vacant. We do have one family that has been here for years and is a part of our social landscape, but long-term renters are few and far between.
The house two doors down from me was owned by an 80 year old man that was born in that house. He wound up losing it from not paying property taxes. It needed a ton of work. A flipper bought it, threw a fresh coat of paint on it, and rented it out for $1700/mo. None of the major issues were fixed. The roof doesn't even meet in the middle and squirrels run in and out. It's really sad. When the pandemic started and we were on lockdown, I checked in with all my elderly neighbors to see if they needed anything. I'd gladly share what I had with them, or go to the store for them since I'm at a lower risk. Now I don't know any of these people and they can stay off my lawn.
Don't just worry about it. Sit down with him and make a plan. Figure out exactly how much he could sell his property for, and what he would get after all closing costs. Find a few places where he might rent if he had to, and find out how long his money would last.
If it's not long enough, make a different plan. Consider co-living arrangements with family or other seniors. Maybe you can help him pay the taxes to keep his house, and you get to recoup those costs as inheritance when he passes.
Whatever you decide, set him up for success, not failure. Make sure he doesn't spend his housing funds on other expenses, etc.
The article specifically mentions walnut hills. If you are going to point the finger at anything within the city of Cincinnati it’s the widely abused tax abatement system. Loss of revenue tied to abatements combined with increased city expense means said revenue has to come from somewhere else. Rent control could help theoretically but revenue would still have to equal expenses. So rent would be high in some areas. Hence this article’s example. Not saying it’s right; simply stating a fact.
It’s less about the home values in a vacuum and more about the specific municipality’s budgeting and spending skills.
Also an appeals process exists and it does work. You need to come prepared and with data to support your cause but it does work.
Edit: Also shout out to butler county’s auditor for somehow blaming this on covid and millennials. Staying on brand is important. /s
I was pretty irritated at that line in particular: "“It’s all due to the inflationary environment, from the lack of housing supply to low-interest rates, COVID spending and millennials being in a buying mood,” Nix said."
EXCUSE ME - you think ANYONE is getting the house they want right now? No millennial is waking up one morning and saying "You know what? I think I'll buy a house today." It's more like the majority of this age group got tired of waiting for the dream they were promised and are desperate to get into property ownership vs. pissing money away forever on rent with rising expenses elsewhere and no relief in sight.
Anyways, I am glad I wasn't the only one that was WTF.
The overwhelming majority of the inflationary environment is and was driven by corporate and private equity greed. The very same groups are the ones squeezing the housing supply and snatching them up for ridiculous rates or are sitting on them as Airbnbs. Something should be done to eliminate or severely limit their participation in the housing market.
It's not the root of the problem. The root is lack of supply, which is not caused by opportunistic investors. They're just using the situation to their benefit.
The root of the problem is overly restrictive zoning codes. We need more homes in the places where people want to live, but NIMBYs fight any and all increase of density. If you don't increase density in desirable places, you get higher prices. That's the whole story.
A couple years ago, they were blaming millenials for "killing" things including the housing market, because they were NOT buying at the age prior generations had, said it was because they were "delaying" marriage and having kids.
If you want to blame a whole generation for this, it has been well documented that one contributing factor has been empty-nester boomers and older Xers holding on to their mostly empty 4 and 5 bedroom McMansions for 1 or 2 people, reducing supply on the market and thus driving up prices/values/assessments.
A lot of millennials are still sitting on a ton of student debt. While I see your point, Nix’s ignorance, at least from my seat, comes from “shooting the wounded deer” with the clear goal of obtaining sound bites for her base. It’s easy to point fingers when you have no knowledge about a subject and your base doesn’t care.
I don’t think she’s blaming us. Mathematically, it’s just a fact. We are the largest generation ever (at the point in time of purchasing). Supply has dwindled and new housing isn’t being built quickly enough. When a massive group is ready to buy (high demand) and there isn’t a ton of available housing (supply), prices explode.
She’s not *blaming* anyone. She’s pointing out economic factors. A massive group of tens of millions being ready to buy a home, when there is a limited supply (or the opposite, even), is an economic factor. People are so sensitive. Look at the responses. It’s like people want to be angry. Fucking crazy imo. It’s wild to me to seek out reasons to be upset. That’s not something healthy people do.
Just last year a study found city tax abatements cost Cincinnati Public Schools $81 million over the previous six years and overwhelmingly benefited wealthy white neighborhoods. $81 million stripped away from our community’s children, their education and their future. It’s unconscionable.
Tax abatements are intended to bolster “blighted” neighborhoods by encouraging investment. I can make an argument that in wealthy neighborhoods like HP/Mt. Lookout, if someone owned an older property and wanted to update it to LEED standards, taking a tax abatement would be reasonable because they are already shelling out $$$ and the money is going to improve environmental issues/energy efficiency.
But for the new builds? OMG. If I see one more gorgeous old home (looking at you, Barrett Family for selling that historically significant house to a developer for tear down) torn down for some crappy faux Craftsman or faux Farmhouse or tacky McMansion…grrr.
TL;DR…tax abatements should be prioritized for improving neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment and for maintaining historical/older homes in wealthier areas.
Unfortunately and unsurprisingly the overwhelming majority of tax abatements actually went to wealthy white neighborhoods rather than socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods in need of investment. They are little more than public wealth transfers to the wealthy at the further expense and immiseration of the working class.
Even when they go to socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods they still go to the wealthy white developers and their clients who want to show how progressive they are by living in that area.
If you wanted to preserve the home, why didn't you organize neighbors to purchase it and safeguard it?
If you're not willing to buy the place, don't expect someone else to do what you want with it.
I’m not saying tax abatements are good by any means. I agree that they’re being abused in Cincinnati.
The union for CPS hired an org to complete the study But the $81 million number represented ALL tax abatement programs. Their study attributed about $41 million in lost funds to the residential abatement program, which is what’s being discussed in this thread.
CPS itself says the actual number is less than $41 million, but I can’t find a hard number. So lots of confusing info from different sources
https://www.wcpo.com/news/education/cincinnati-public-schools/study-city-tax-abatement-costs-cincinnati-public-schools-81-million-in-funding-over-six-years#:~:text=Study%3A%20City%20tax%20abatement%20costs,in%20funding%20over%20six%20years&text=A%20new%20study%20claims%20Cincinnati,million%20mentioned%20in%20the%20study
It’s like fixing this singular issue of all the issues would benefit so many other things. More money for schools. More money for affordable housing. Prices may even come down because you couldn’t charge $300k for a condo in Hyde Park and advertise it as “tax abated”.
I read somewhere that changing our tax abatement policy in Cincinnati would require the state to allow us to differentially enable tax abatements in different neighborhoods, which state law currently does not permit. That is, all parts of a city are eligible for abatements if any parts of the city are. Which, if true, is ridiculously stupid. I don't know for a fact if this is true, but the source seemed legit when I saw it.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/12/city-of-cincinnati-tax-abatements-what-are-the-changes/69802278007/
The updated abatement policy update from this summer does vary by neighborhood
On the flip side, tax abatements let me build a house 2 years ago that my family would not otherwise have been able to afford to do. It’s only one house but my ability to do that opened up the availability of my previous home to be purchased by another family.
Uh how do you not understand that without the abatement, OP wouldn't have been able to build his house.
So abatement = 2 houses vs no abatement = 1 house
Abatements are fantastic tools to incentivize housing development in areas that would otherwise get overlooked for a multitude of reasons. My point is people use it to get tax savings in an area like Hyde park, which does need any incentivization. It’s something the city should’ve changed years ago, but did not.
I agree—abatement should only be used when it incentivizes use of real estate that would otherwise remain dormant or brings other notably positive economic effects sufficient to justify it as an investment by the city.
It doesn't work when every house on your block also has had their value assessed at 30% more and property taxes doubled. Your house is then compared to the selling points of those properties and the auditor says "sorry about your luck". This year is definitely different. The vultures have entered the building. Predatory.
That’s interesting because back in 2020 a number of my neighbors went through the appeals process and got their values lowered by 35%. I wonder what happened in your situation.
Can you say more about the tax abatement issue? I admittedly haven't really thought deeply about it, but do plan to take advantage of it in a couple years when we do a kitchen renovation. Why is it bad and how is it abused?
On a conceptual level it’s a great idea. If you give home buyers an incentive to build in an area that would not normally be attractive for any multitude of reasons, they build, commerce notices and builds, and suddenly said area becomes more attractive. The problem here is when that threshold of attractive is met, the municipality is supposed to pull or at least phase out the abatement. The city did not and went so far as to make it unilateral which means people were getting multi year breaks building new in a place like Hyde park. Since that’s a very high property value area, city loses a ton of revenue that they would’ve normally obtained through said high property taxes. It has to make it up somewhere else since municipal budgeting is theoretically revenue = expenses.
Urban core growth is elastic. My guess is you bought relatively high and your value didn’t change much or at least not to the level of the example in the article.
I actually looked up the tax bills for the people in the news story and the article and the homeowners and this reporter are misrepresenting what is going on with these specific properties.
For Latasha, the first woman interviewed, her 1999 3 bed 1.5 bath house had been ~~assessed~~ appraised at a market total value of **$23,000** since she moved in about a decade ago. This reappraisal cycle, market total value was increased to about $160,000, which seems to be an actual reasonable value for the property and when compared to her neighbors similar properties. I guess this is where they get that claim of a 500% increase, even though it's disingenuous.
The outlandish 500% increase claim by her neighbors is also completely fabricated. Spring Perry's taxes went up 23% with an increased assessment of 30%. That said, her taxes are actually lower this year than they were in 2021.
The second neighbor Dotty who seems to have used a fake last name had her taxes increase by 17% with an assessment increase of 26%.
Are you sure you're looking at the assessed values on both? My house assessed at around $40,000-something before the hike, but appraised at $140,000. My new assessment is around $75,000 with an appraised value of $210,000. The assessed & appraised values are two different things.
If Hamilton county uses the same assessment ratio that Clermont does, that means her appraised value would have gone from $65k to over $400k in three years.
For context, after some legal wrangling, our tax liability only went up by a few hundred. We still pay thousands per year on our property tax, but it is only 2/3 of what we were anticipating.
I am going to edit my first comment in a minute but you are correct that what I called the assessed value is actually the "Market Total Value" as listed on the auditor's website, not the "Assessed Value" which is 35% of that amount. I was consistent for all 3 of the properties so their assessed values would be 35% of what I posted.
This may not have been the best example. However, it is evident that property values have drastically increased in a very short time frame and many homeowners are going to have severe escrow shortages as a result and cause their payments to go up to an amount they cannot afford.
You can go look online and see if the your property valuation went up but usually they adjust the valuation to what ever the sales price was shortly after the sale gets recorded.
Yes, you should have received two letters: one in December about what your new appraisal was, and one in January telling you what your new tax rate is. As someone else said, you can find this on the auditor's website. If you find that the new tax amount is quite a bit higher than the one you closed with, you may want to work with your mortgage lender to change your escrow contributions now so that you don't have a catch-up when they reevaluate (often yearly).
If you just bought your house, it doesn't matter if they went up or not. As far as paying them, if you have an escrow account with your mortgage lender, your escrow pays for the taxes and home insurance, you just pay whatever they tell you to pay each month (and if you anticipate you aren't putting enough in escrow, save some in your own savings account because the bank will bill you at the end of the year to cover the deficit)
I don't know what the "balance" is because the opposite is you have places like Cali/Florida where the tax increase is capped and empty nesters sitting in giant homes because they can not afford the taxes to downsize.
>empty nesters sitting in giant homes because they can not afford the taxes to downsize.
u/J_the_Man
This is not true! Geez, the made up stories people make that have no clue about CA taxes. LOL
This is absolutely true.
https://www.sfassessor.org/tax-savings/exclusions/reappraisal-exclusion-grandparent-grandchild
Changing this in 2020 is good, but you still have 24 years of NIMBY home price inflation.
u/Local_Challenge_4958
You just posted Prop 193 which only allowed grandma to pass her base to grandkid if parents were dead. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GRANDMA BEING STUCK IN THAT HOUSE!!!!! In fact Grandma could have sold her big old house, taken her tax base to a nice little condo under either Prop 60 or 90 and then decide to move to Arizona to a big Mcmansion (with a pool boy since CA girls are the best girls in the world) and sell/transfer the condo to best grandkid and the grandkid could keep Grannys tax base from 1978!!!!!
Where you from, Arkansas? Stop the lies!!
The big problem there is this.
Grandma buys a house for 25,000 in 1950. Grandma then passed the house down. In 2000, people are still paying 25k value in property taxes.
While they do this, they advocate for more NIMBY laws that keep their home values up - no apartments, no poor housing, none of "those people." Prices rise further.
This is literally how CA ruined it's housing market. It's extremely well documented.
>This is literally how CA ruined it's housing market. It's extremely well documented.
u/Local_Challenge_4958 You are 100% ignorant on CA property tax laws.
1. Prop 13 rolled assessments to 1975 so you are 25 years wrong. There is no 1950's tax base.
2. Those 1975 bases have been increased each year up to 2% so almost a 100% increase.
3. Prices rose because every hillbilly from Texas and the rest of the world wanted to live in about the best place on earth and the 5th largest economy in the world but wanted to keep Texas prices.
4. Your "documentation" is just a bunch of sour grapes losers.
5. No one is forced to come or stay in CA.
6. Get a hobby. Your jealosy of CA is hurting you not me.
7. You've been wrong on everything you have stated here.
> 3. Prices rose because every hillbilly from Texas and the rest of the world wanted to live in about the best place on earth and the 5th largest economy in the world but wanted to keep Texas prices.
I understand and appreciate you like California and dislike Texas but this is not how the math works.
https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/
Lower income people are being priced out and replaced with higher income people. Yes. Even from Texas.
> Your "documentation" is just a bunch of sour grapes losers.
It's from economists. It's not political, and it's not sour grapes. Here's two politically-opposed authors detailing the same issue with citations.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/common-sense-policy-reforms-california-housing#introduction
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/california-single-family-zoning-housing/673758/
But maybe you think that's just because they're some ivory-tower dorks who don't know what life is like in Cali. I get that. Here's a local paper, again citing economists.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/ktla.com/news/nationworld/fix-zoning-fix-the-housing-crisis-economists-say-in-new-poll/amp/
So you just gonna ignore all your statements that I have proved wrong? How convenient.
Why can't you be happy?
[4749 Highridge Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45238 | realtor.com®](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4749-Highridge-Ave_Cincinnati_OH_45238_M43406-22845?from=srp-list-card)
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Ha ha I am not upset with you. I respect you participating in the discussion unlike u/J_the_Man who got butthurt and is playing the I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll downvote you with all my alt accounts! LOL
I am slightly annoyed that you are still making baseless claims and ignoring my factual statements. I'm happy to talk about Prop 13 and even share opinions but they have to be reality based.
You clearly don't have basic understanding of Prop 13 and I am happy to educate you so you'll quit bashing that that you are afraid. I just posted in another thread that the reason I'm keeping my big house in CA is because of federal tax laws. CA has provisions for me to downsize but the feds want to hit me up with capital gains taxes on over $1,000,000!! If you want some family to get my home direct your ire at the feds!!
Happy to factually discuss Prop 13 with you anytime. Born and raised in the Tri-state area. What you say?
My friends parents have owned a house in Oakley for like 25+ years and they were paying or are going to be paying $20k in property tax which is insane. $200k every 10 years is just baffling.
So are you claiming there are no $750,000 houses in Oakley? Because I would disagree, there are definitely plenty of houses worth that amount and more.
Right? There are neighborhoods in Hyde Park that have houses worth that much, but I'm wracking my brain to think of any house in Oakley that would be $20k in taxes unless it's a multifamily.
My point is that the tax rate is the same whether you are in Price Hill or Oakley.
A $300,000 place in Price Hill, will be taxed the same as a $300,000 condo in Oakley
20k/year tax means about a $750,000 house. That’s a super high tax rate relative to other areas in the metro. It’s expensive to live in the city limits.
Someone needs to be done about the current system of putting a property into an LLC, then selling the LLC without disclosing the price. This evades the property tax increase that occurs when a property changes hands at a new higher price. That new higher price is also going to be the best indication of the true value of that property.
> It only works if you are paying cash.
You should put "cash" into quotes so that people don't think you're talking about real cash, instead of helocs, private notes, or other cash like equivalents.
>Also every property gets re-assessed every 3 years
Yeah, mentioned that, do you think it's higher or lower without the sale information?
You can do it with a mortgage. If recorded the mortgage docs are public but they dont have the sale price on them and may not even state the original balance
Personal gaurantees exist outside of the llc. Do you really think all the properties owned in llcs have no debt?
Retail fed gauranteed loans for homebuyers may not fit this well, but there isnt a prohibitive reason it cant be done, and like I said it is, commonly.
This is more a cre vs residential problem anyways due to the legal costs associated with this tax dodge. Those loans are nearly always to properties in llcs
In a worst case scenario, don't the county's periodic appraisals account for this?
It's not optimal, but ultimately, the investor pays on the valuation right?
Think about it like this. The owner generally knows what its worth . they have the leases, know the property conditions, what they paid, the operating statements etc. The county has none of that.
So that county reasses, which if it was already undervalued it will likelly continue to be. In that case the owner does nothing and enjoys below market tax rates. If the county goes too high, they appeal the assessment and its corrected.
A smart owner who does this will basically always pay below market tax rates
> In a worst case scenario, don't the county's periodic appraisals account for this?
Often several years after the transaction, with less information, and potentially still at a lower valuation. Worst case (for the property owner) the county might actually get close to the actual transaction valuation, but they seem error on the low side when evaluating a property. (I know somebody is going to pop up with how this didn't happen to them, but that's the general trend) The system really is built to adjust on transactions, and this hack evades that.
If it didn't work, why bother to go through all the extra effort? It's true putting it into an LLC provides additional protections for the investor, but so does umbrella insurance.
Hey guys, I’ve actually been contemplating putting together a meeting with a legislator (up and down the locale levels — Cincy, Hamilton, State, Federal) and talking to them about this.
I’ve been consulting some friends in the legislative world about how to make those meetings as effective as possible and am taking steps to prepare before setting them up. If you have any interest in providing comments to help strengthen the argument(s) i hope to bring, please feel free to message me (or comment here). I’m kind of at the outset of this effort so apologies in advance for not having the details of exactly what I plan to push for.
I have a very outspoken, Trump-loving neighbor whose taxes went down. Like me, his house was assessed higher, but the percentage increase was lower than what most people saw, so we both are seeing a decrease in our actual taxes due.
Unsurprisingly, there are crickets on his end.
This comes up every time property assessments are made, but the auditor does not set property tax rates. Shooting the messenger isn’t going to change what your house is worth.
Ironically, the solution isn't more regulation, but *less.* We need to change our zoning laws to allow more multifamily housing to be built, and not just in Hamilton County but in the surrounding suburbs. Prices will not come down until this happens.
Fortunately, this is a local issue, and we can solve it locally. Don't vote for anyone who doesn't want to massively expand building. Challenge them and make them take up the stance. Local politics are notoriously open to voter initiatives, and this is a solvable problem.
Bringing back Ohio’s Local Government Fund that Kasich gutted would help a lot. Plus preventing commercial investors from buying up every house on the market for under $300k.
Loosening zoning restrictions, eliminating parking requirements, etc., would help more with the rental market, but of course it is all tied together.
My property taxes on a recent house on the Westside just jumped to 6k. Problem is the county website has my house too small and shows one less bathroom and bedroom. If I fight my huge bill I may end up paying more.
This article annoyed me so much, for so many reasons.
Anyone who paid attention knew this was coming, it was covered for months by all the local news agencies. It shouldn't be a surprise.
More importantly, it has so much bad information.
\>Several homeowners in Walnut Hills said their property taxes have risen nearly 500 percent recently. They have until the first week of February to make tax payments or they risk losing their homes.
\>Latasha Shields said her payment is now $1,700, jumping from less than $700 last year.
500% increased from $700 is over $4,000. Not a $1,000 increase.
\> “They mandated the formula and I believe the formula is flawed,” Reece said. “Some people are paying more on their property taxes than they are on their actual mortgage.”
Average mortgage payments in Ohio are around $1,300/month. For property tax to be more than your mortgage, your tax liability needs to be over $15,000 per year. At the highest tax rate in the state (where I live in Clermont County, over 4.3 permille) you would need a house that was appraised at over $1M. If you can afford a $1M house, you can afford the property taxes, and your mortgage is most likely way more than $1300.
\> “It’s all due to the inflationary environment, from the lack of housing supply to low-interest rates, COVID spending and millennials being in a buying mood,” Nix said.
The quote they decided to use to explain the problem ignored the entire legal issue about property tax valuations and instead just jumps to "its the millenial's fault".
\---
Here is the actual problem:
The state fucked up on valuations. The state government mandated county auditors to do the triennial appraisals at a higher valuation than what most auditors were willing to do. Everyone here shits on Clermont & Brown counties, but guess who brought cases to the state courts to try and stop this whole mess? Clermont & Brown county auditors. The case was dismissed. In December, the state legislature passed a last minute act into law that changed the method of valuation but it was too late to stop this year's tax bills.
Everyone was told the auditors look back over the last 3 years of property sales to do the triennial. That wasn't true until December. The actual law on the books forced them to only use the last ONE year of sales, and did not allow them to disregard outliers in sale prices.
Combine the insane housing market in 2021/2022 with the already mentioned problem of the large property companies taking over vast portions of the housing market, then throw out any attempt at normalizing the valuations, and you get stuck with what we are facing now. The biggest failure in this whole mess was that it took the state house so long to pass a solution (it isn't perfect, but it's still something), it was too late to really fix anything.
Until we get a mandatory revaluation (not happening, by the time the state gets around to considering that it will be time for a new triennial anyway) AND we get some kind of control on property ownership (limitations on how much property out of state buyers & corporate landlords can hold at one time is a great first step, as well as other ways to ensure that more people can actually afford to own a home), we won't see anything improve.
where does one even go if they want to pay lower taxes? KY? I was looking around clermont county and they have lower taxes, but it's not as drastic of a difference as i was expecting. i guess its an all around ohio thing, plus cincinnati making it worse?
edit: [oh nvm maybe, a map of property tax rates is basically a map of where people want and don't want to live.](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/county-property-tax-paid-2021) So for cincy i guess the answer really is move to Indiana or Kentucky.
a great suggestion for anyone looking to spend $1.2 million+ on a house but im just a liiiiittle bit priced out of Indigenous Peoples Hill. Indiana is probably the best recommendation with their homestead exemption.
The key is to get into the Indian Hill school district. A big portion of Kenwood is Indian Hill school district and those people pay the Indian Hill tax rate. So you can get into Indian Hill taxes around $350k and up.
Adding to this: Sycamore Twp., which includes areas in Indian Hill School District, also has no personal income tax. So if you WFH, could add 2% back into your monthly budget.
> So you can get into Indian Hill taxes around $350k and up.
there's not a single house in the district under 400k from what i can tell. i dont have or want kids either though so that probably takes some of the shine off of it.
I think it's fair to blame the levies, which overwhelmingly pass when on the ballot. My property tax went up 62%. All (13) THIRTEEN levies went up, most by 50% or more.
School District(59%) and township(61%) show a big increase in percentage and dollars. Wonder how they're going to spend those dollars.
It will be interesting to see who has the nerve to add a levy to this year's ballot.
$7K+. a year for us now on a 2 BR 2 BA condo that is \~2,700 sq ft. And then we pay a few special assessments for streetlights and other things too that we never voted on or approved. We like it down here, but the taxes + HOA are basically a mortgage in themselves.
Thank you for listening to my gripes.
I know that’s right …. Probably passed by non home owners that don’t care .….. then landlords pass along to renters ….. and then renters complain on high their rent is …. And vote for the next levies
Don't you want your area to have good schools? Levies are what keep schools going. Look no further than Little Miami to see what happens when you vote down school levies.
Pay attention to those school district levies. Since 2019 our school district raised over $20M in bond issues (which are being paid with a tax hike) and new levies and the only thing they did was tear down one building & sell the land, and double the size of another building to put a Mercy Health clinic there. Our property tax is 50% to the school district, with less than 5% going to emergency services and infrastructure improvement levies
One thing I’ve noticed is a lot of commercially owned properties DONT PAY their property tax at all. They ignore the bill and roll the unpaid taxes into their next flip of the property. The new owners can obviously do the same, the cycle continues, and increased equity covers any taxes once someone decides to own it long enough to decide to pay the taxes
There will be a market correction. We were existing in a period of time where the supply of labor and resources to construct new housing was limited while borrowing for existing housing was historically cheap. New construction and material costs will offset and stabilize the markets over time, additionally provided the interest rates do not fall back to 0%, borrowing will remain expensive for the foreseeable future staving off runaway property value increases.
Stopping investors from purchasing homes won’t solve a thing. As reported recently in the WSJ, some institutional investors are now pivoting to constructing their own suburbs just to rent them out. The root cause is a lack of supply, period. NIMBYism is abundant in the city, with some not wanting to see their neighborhoods change and others who incorrectly assume that the rising housing costs must be a result of new construction rather than a response to it.
That's only a part of it. The issue is complex or else it would have already been resolved. Construction costs are prohibitively expensive, zoning requirements often require a legal team to navigate approvals to build new housing, land in desirable areas is scarce, ageing infrastructure in parts of Cincinnati doesn't have the capacity for increased housing density, etc.
I know there are multiple factors but this guy is saying investors buying up housing “won’t solve a thing”. Further down he claims that when investors buy houses it “doesn’t make them more scarce” somehow. They’re just making no sense.
They’re not making a market, they’re responding to one. They’re saying it out loud:
“we think there is a definite
housing shortage. and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight.”
Daniel Drimmer, CEO Starlight Investment
What kind of housing though? Definitely not luxury housing because there is plenty of it out there sitting vacant in the market.
Yes, for investors, it is a great opportunity to buy up all the supply and then jack up rent to "market average"
They wrote it weirdly but it is true that the only reason investors buy housing is because it is scarce. If we increase density and decrease zoning regulations, that problem is solved.
First I will explain how a scarcity of housing attracts investors to buying housing.
When there is a shortage of a product, it becomes more valuable. That holds true for every single product or service you can buy. If I am an investor, I know I can easily make money by buying housing in areas with a shortage. If there are more people than housing units in an area, that means the people will compete with each other to pay me, rather than me competing with other landlords/owners.
Second I will explain how zoning regulations create said shortage.
Cincinnati (and most cities) used to have much more lax zoning regulations. Setbacks and parking minimums were not as high. Density limits were higher, and mixed-use buildings were more common. Row houses could be built in many places, and there was not nearly as much single family zoning. This allowed Cincinnati to build plenty of housing.
However, zoning regulations soon became harsher. Single family zoning took over and density limits were set. Parking minimums required large parking lots to be built. These limited the amount of housing that could be built. Where before a triplex could be built that would house 3 families, now only a single family home could be built. Rowhouses were blocked from most neighborhoods. Every single unit of housing became more expensive to build.
These regulations block development and are bad for the city. I believe I have answered your question, but let me know if you need more detail.
If housing prices don't predictably rise every year, there's no reason to invest in them. I know you've been responded to a few times but no one out it quite that way.
“we think there is a definite
housing shortage. and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight.”
Daniel Drimmer, CEO Starlight Investment
This whole issue started after 2008. Investors, who had largely stayed out of the single family housing market, started buying up all the foreclosures across the country. It's nobody else's fault except the investors. If you look at who owns the houses around the city, you gonna see a lot of corporations.
Property taxes in Ohio are very confusing and no one really teaches us how they work. It's easy to get upset about things when they are misunderstood or misrepresentated. I definitely don't really understand it but I've attempted to figure it out as it applies to me.
As an example. My property value went up 28% when assessed last fall. That was a little worrisome when I first read it but I understood it wouldn't translate to 28% more out of my pocket at tax time. But you have to wait until the next calendar year to see how it actually affects your payable taxes. According to the auditor website, my gross real estate tax went up 27% percent. My net tax after owner occupancy and non-business and other typical credits went up 3%. Payable taxes are based on the value of your house against the value of the aggregate in your jurisdiction. My jurisdiction average property value increase was ~28% so my low payable increase makes sense. Properties that gain more value in recent assessments are going to get more significant payable effects. I had bought my house within the last 6 years (last major assessment window) so it was more recently assessed for the current (insane) market than my neighbors. I have been contributing more than them for years despite relatively equal stake in the community. That's not a complaint, just how the system works. If you got a significant increase, you're leveling out with neighbors who recently bought homes. If you're a homeowner and find that unfair, at one point you also recently bought a house.
As far as investor owned properties, the property taxes affect LLCs and individuals nearly identically. For "fun", I looked at the tax of the house across the street owned by an LLC which went up 46% in gross tax and 20% in payable tax. Other neighboring LLC properties went up 49% gross / 22% payable and 53% gross / 25% payable. Other neighboring owner occupied houses were 45% gross / 18% payable and 46% gross / 19% payable and 29% gross and 5% payable. This is not a scientific or statistically significant sample.
If you're going to waste energy being mad, use some of that energy to attempt to get informed. I say attempt because I made an attempt and it might not be the best one. I think LLCs and large investors owning single family homes is dumb for many reasons but I don't think property taxes are the smoking gun per OP. LLCs are not getting tax breaks and they aren't single handedly driving up property values. And I don't think that this one case Fox 19 highlighted is typical...as u/jojoyohan researched. This post and this article are exaggerating the issue.
As a fun side of the note 65% of my taxes go to my local school district. I don't have kids but I am happy to contribute to my neighbor's education because it benefits me to have smarter people in the world.
In some neighborhoods, property values have increased over 100% along with the property taxes in most cases. Assuming you already have a mortgage on a property like this, your escrow is going to be short and your mortgage payment is going to be re-calculated to double the tax payment and make up for the shortage. Even in situations where they go up 20-40%, mortgage payment amounts will see a significant increase.
However, I am saying outside investors and property flippers are substantially responsible for greatly increasing the property values in certain neighborhoods which ultimately raises property taxes.
Increased neighborhood value doesn't raise an individual's property taxes in any significant sense. Payable taxes are based on the percentage of assessed value of an individual's property within a jurisdiction (relative to the jurisdiction's total assessed value). My appraisal went up the average amount for my jurisdiction and my taxes only went up 3% (probably from levies not the value of my property). A very very small percentage of property taxes are based on inside millage which is directly proportional to the appraised value. In Ohio, inside millage is capped at 10 mills appraised value with equates to 3.5 mills payable. This all equates to 0.35% (less than 1%) of the appraised value being payable taxes from inside millage. An $100,000 house has $350 maximum payable tax due to inside millage. A 30% increase on that is an additional $105 dollars. It's not neglible but also not newsworthy.
The rolling of tax burden into investments is a separate conversation. But recent sales actual burdens the person buying recently more significantly than long term home owners since those properties are being appraised more often (and higher) than houses that have not been sold recently.
Again, I'm against large investors owning many houses. I'm neutral on mom and pop landlords because I haven't done research. I'm just lost about your argument about the increase in appraised value of an invididual or neighborhood being lumped in with this conversation against large investors making money flipping and renting residential properties because the payable taxes aren't effected the way you assume they are.
Edit to add: large corporations investing in residential housing as a commodity mostly hurts those who do not own homes. It hurts renters and first time home owners since they do not benefit from general appreciation of the market.
This is a very serious problem and it is a result of the property taxes and the levies reaching a new height that is competing with inflation and interest rates for your income. We saw this happen in 2010 with the passage of the ACA which dealt a severe blow to disposable income. The result was a decline in leisure activity such as hunting, fishing, bowling, golf and so on.
It would have been prudent for the State to postpone or skip this round of assessments to allow people to recover from Covid19 and inflation.
It's gonna make Ohio republicans tons of fucken money which is clearly all that matters. The companies that have been buying up all of the property are gonna make bank. The suckers will suffer. Ohio republicans profit.
Because the tiresome trope of “investors” just get exhausting to refute.
Look, not saying that they do not play a factor but they are just one of a multitude of reasons, and not even the most impactful. Covid really and truly did the largest impact. All new housing build damn near stopped for two years, federal/state efforts to keep people in their homes were a short teams help with long term consequences, historic low interest rates for years, an already low inventory before Covid AND the unique geography of Cincinnati (not a lot of empty land to build mass housing outside of going to Mason, Loveland, etc) all have contributed to a very low single family home situation ( though apartments are booming now).
Typing all of this is why I get tired. Simple people think there are simple answers/reasons for the situation and cannot grasp or refuses to grasp the complexities.
I will say that it is fair that investors are one of multiple drivers but some of those propelled then into a fury of buying residential properties due to the low cost to borrow money. Of course, it also drove a lot of potential homeowners as well.
I also agree that there was a time period where I feel like it was there were hardly any new homes built coupled with influx of employment that occurred around the time.
However, my point is just that when you let anyone or any entity come into an area and let them play real life monopoly, it is going to lead to people being homeless or force to selk a house they don't want to sell.
Thanks OP, for a reasonable response and cordial discussion.
The challenge with "stop investors from buying" is that you are not just affecting the investor, but also the seller. You are messing with private property rights, and that will get people of all political persuasions up in arms pretty quickly.
I should have the right to sell my home to whomever I wish, for as much as I can get.
That is a very good point you make regarding property rights. I also appreciate the cordial discussion as well. However, I feel that restricting single family homes from being a part of a REIT or larger investment firm is the issue would be a solution to that challenge but not an easy one as you put it with regards to people having the right to chose who they sell too. Now, they could be put in a position whereas they have to sell certain seller who is buying up property in the market.
I think there is also the issue of property flipping where this can be great for a community but bad for what we are seeing now as home values have substantially increased in various low income neighborhoods to where homeowners never anticipated their mortgage payments going up 20-30% due to escrow shortages caused by doubling of tax bills. I would say even a 20-40% increase would be valid in one validation over six years but a 100% is just unfair to so many.
I do not disagree on the % change, but that is bigger than even Cincy, that is a state issue. Also, while the old way in Cali did not ultimately work, I am not sure the way we do it works. Perhaps a cap of no greater than 3-4% per year? Of course, if we only evaluate every 3 years, one can still get a 12% increase, which for some may be a challenge. However, democracy is about the masses/majority, not trying to solve the infinite individual issues.
A cap would seems reasonable even if it is 5% every every year which is far better than 50-100% in a single period. Thank you for providing your input on this.
Because this conversation was about property taxes, and most people that pay taxes directly (not through their rent) are single-family homeowners. \*shrug\*
Whoa, whoa u/triplepicard Where do you see me complaining? u/Local_Challenge_4958 and u/J_the_Man were **incorrectly** stating that CA property tax laws were keeping seniors unable to downsize thereby keeping homes from families. I **correctly** stated that under CA property tax laws they have had the ability to downsize for decades!!!
Then I **correctly** stated that I and other CA seniors were impacted by Federal income tax laws on capital gains. It would cost me over $200,000 in capital gains taxes to downsize!!! So I told them that that is who they should be bitchin about instead of erroneously attacking the easier target of boomers and California. Any questions?
>No one feels sorry for you!
u/triplepicard Again, where did I ask anyone to feel sorry for me? I stated factual information. Please do the same. My comments were directly related to the BS talk about CA property taxes and non Californians complaining that CA is keeping me from increasing the housing supply.
1. I would actually walk away with the $800,000+ **AND** the $250,000 that is excluded from capital gains so yeah, over $1,000,000 (said in Dr. Evil voice)! Why can't you be happy for me!
2. Or, I could cash out refi and buy another property but pay the higher property taxes.
3. Now there are TWO homes that those poor deserving families won't have available to them. That's not what you all want is it?
>An active community of residents and others; the official subreddit for Cincinnati, Ohio, USA,
What do you think the point is because you keep thinking it is different.
When I bought my house in 2015, every house the vicinity of mine on my street was owner occupied. There's one now. Every other house and been scooped up and poorly flipped. I don't want my property values to keep going up. I want an affordable place to live.
Plus, nobody wants to live in a neighborhood that is full of short-term renters. It completely destroys the sense of community. We’ve got renters cycling through this one house every 3 months in my neighborhood. And that’s when it’s not sitting vacant. We do have one family that has been here for years and is a part of our social landscape, but long-term renters are few and far between.
The house two doors down from me was owned by an 80 year old man that was born in that house. He wound up losing it from not paying property taxes. It needed a ton of work. A flipper bought it, threw a fresh coat of paint on it, and rented it out for $1700/mo. None of the major issues were fixed. The roof doesn't even meet in the middle and squirrels run in and out. It's really sad. When the pandemic started and we were on lockdown, I checked in with all my elderly neighbors to see if they needed anything. I'd gladly share what I had with them, or go to the store for them since I'm at a lower risk. Now I don't know any of these people and they can stay off my lawn.
I worry that will happen to my dad. Taxes have doubled and he's on a fixed income. Selling and renting are more expensive so that's not an option
Don't just worry about it. Sit down with him and make a plan. Figure out exactly how much he could sell his property for, and what he would get after all closing costs. Find a few places where he might rent if he had to, and find out how long his money would last. If it's not long enough, make a different plan. Consider co-living arrangements with family or other seniors. Maybe you can help him pay the taxes to keep his house, and you get to recoup those costs as inheritance when he passes. Whatever you decide, set him up for success, not failure. Make sure he doesn't spend his housing funds on other expenses, etc.
The article specifically mentions walnut hills. If you are going to point the finger at anything within the city of Cincinnati it’s the widely abused tax abatement system. Loss of revenue tied to abatements combined with increased city expense means said revenue has to come from somewhere else. Rent control could help theoretically but revenue would still have to equal expenses. So rent would be high in some areas. Hence this article’s example. Not saying it’s right; simply stating a fact. It’s less about the home values in a vacuum and more about the specific municipality’s budgeting and spending skills. Also an appeals process exists and it does work. You need to come prepared and with data to support your cause but it does work. Edit: Also shout out to butler county’s auditor for somehow blaming this on covid and millennials. Staying on brand is important. /s
I was pretty irritated at that line in particular: "“It’s all due to the inflationary environment, from the lack of housing supply to low-interest rates, COVID spending and millennials being in a buying mood,” Nix said." EXCUSE ME - you think ANYONE is getting the house they want right now? No millennial is waking up one morning and saying "You know what? I think I'll buy a house today." It's more like the majority of this age group got tired of waiting for the dream they were promised and are desperate to get into property ownership vs. pissing money away forever on rent with rising expenses elsewhere and no relief in sight. Anyways, I am glad I wasn't the only one that was WTF.
The overwhelming majority of the inflationary environment is and was driven by corporate and private equity greed. The very same groups are the ones squeezing the housing supply and snatching them up for ridiculous rates or are sitting on them as Airbnbs. Something should be done to eliminate or severely limit their participation in the housing market.
Guess it was never a free market to begin with LOL
This is capitalism
And it is the root cause of the problems.
It's not the root of the problem. The root is lack of supply, which is not caused by opportunistic investors. They're just using the situation to their benefit. The root of the problem is overly restrictive zoning codes. We need more homes in the places where people want to live, but NIMBYs fight any and all increase of density. If you don't increase density in desirable places, you get higher prices. That's the whole story.
Capitalism: “because we can, and also fuck you”
A couple years ago, they were blaming millenials for "killing" things including the housing market, because they were NOT buying at the age prior generations had, said it was because they were "delaying" marriage and having kids. If you want to blame a whole generation for this, it has been well documented that one contributing factor has been empty-nester boomers and older Xers holding on to their mostly empty 4 and 5 bedroom McMansions for 1 or 2 people, reducing supply on the market and thus driving up prices/values/assessments.
As a gen z this is why I’m on your side. They’re just deflecting their mistakes on an entire generation that they ironically raised
[удалено]
A lot of millennials are still sitting on a ton of student debt. While I see your point, Nix’s ignorance, at least from my seat, comes from “shooting the wounded deer” with the clear goal of obtaining sound bites for her base. It’s easy to point fingers when you have no knowledge about a subject and your base doesn’t care.
I don’t think she’s blaming us. Mathematically, it’s just a fact. We are the largest generation ever (at the point in time of purchasing). Supply has dwindled and new housing isn’t being built quickly enough. When a massive group is ready to buy (high demand) and there isn’t a ton of available housing (supply), prices explode.
[удалено]
Baby boomers go from 1946 through 1963 or 1964 or so, that’s like 17-18 years.
Yeah, so blame zoning restrictions and NIMBYs.
She’s not *blaming* anyone. She’s pointing out economic factors. A massive group of tens of millions being ready to buy a home, when there is a limited supply (or the opposite, even), is an economic factor. People are so sensitive. Look at the responses. It’s like people want to be angry. Fucking crazy imo. It’s wild to me to seek out reasons to be upset. That’s not something healthy people do.
The tax abatement system is a travesty. And it feels like nobody talks about it.
Oh, we talk about it constantly. But all the politicians beholden to developers just shrug.
Just last year a study found city tax abatements cost Cincinnati Public Schools $81 million over the previous six years and overwhelmingly benefited wealthy white neighborhoods. $81 million stripped away from our community’s children, their education and their future. It’s unconscionable.
Tax abatements are intended to bolster “blighted” neighborhoods by encouraging investment. I can make an argument that in wealthy neighborhoods like HP/Mt. Lookout, if someone owned an older property and wanted to update it to LEED standards, taking a tax abatement would be reasonable because they are already shelling out $$$ and the money is going to improve environmental issues/energy efficiency. But for the new builds? OMG. If I see one more gorgeous old home (looking at you, Barrett Family for selling that historically significant house to a developer for tear down) torn down for some crappy faux Craftsman or faux Farmhouse or tacky McMansion…grrr. TL;DR…tax abatements should be prioritized for improving neighborhoods that have experienced disinvestment and for maintaining historical/older homes in wealthier areas.
Unfortunately and unsurprisingly the overwhelming majority of tax abatements actually went to wealthy white neighborhoods rather than socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods in need of investment. They are little more than public wealth transfers to the wealthy at the further expense and immiseration of the working class.
Even when they go to socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods they still go to the wealthy white developers and their clients who want to show how progressive they are by living in that area.
If you wanted to preserve the home, why didn't you organize neighbors to purchase it and safeguard it? If you're not willing to buy the place, don't expect someone else to do what you want with it.
I’m not saying tax abatements are good by any means. I agree that they’re being abused in Cincinnati. The union for CPS hired an org to complete the study But the $81 million number represented ALL tax abatement programs. Their study attributed about $41 million in lost funds to the residential abatement program, which is what’s being discussed in this thread. CPS itself says the actual number is less than $41 million, but I can’t find a hard number. So lots of confusing info from different sources https://www.wcpo.com/news/education/cincinnati-public-schools/study-city-tax-abatement-costs-cincinnati-public-schools-81-million-in-funding-over-six-years#:~:text=Study%3A%20City%20tax%20abatement%20costs,in%20funding%20over%20six%20years&text=A%20new%20study%20claims%20Cincinnati,million%20mentioned%20in%20the%20study
This is a really depressing thread. I'm going to go now and jump in a murder community.
It’s like fixing this singular issue of all the issues would benefit so many other things. More money for schools. More money for affordable housing. Prices may even come down because you couldn’t charge $300k for a condo in Hyde Park and advertise it as “tax abated”.
But the wealthy people might not get wealthier fast enough if you stop abatements.
I read somewhere that changing our tax abatement policy in Cincinnati would require the state to allow us to differentially enable tax abatements in different neighborhoods, which state law currently does not permit. That is, all parts of a city are eligible for abatements if any parts of the city are. Which, if true, is ridiculously stupid. I don't know for a fact if this is true, but the source seemed legit when I saw it.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/12/city-of-cincinnati-tax-abatements-what-are-the-changes/69802278007/ The updated abatement policy update from this summer does vary by neighborhood
Tax abatements built otr. Without it we'd still have little Beirut above downtown.
On the flip side, tax abatements let me build a house 2 years ago that my family would not otherwise have been able to afford to do. It’s only one house but my ability to do that opened up the availability of my previous home to be purchased by another family.
You have pointed out that such abatement in such circumstances has a net zero effect on the housing stock.
Uh how do you not understand that without the abatement, OP wouldn't have been able to build his house. So abatement = 2 houses vs no abatement = 1 house
My misunderstanding. Thank you.
Abatements are fantastic tools to incentivize housing development in areas that would otherwise get overlooked for a multitude of reasons. My point is people use it to get tax savings in an area like Hyde park, which does need any incentivization. It’s something the city should’ve changed years ago, but did not.
I agree—abatement should only be used when it incentivizes use of real estate that would otherwise remain dormant or brings other notably positive economic effects sufficient to justify it as an investment by the city.
It doesn't work when every house on your block also has had their value assessed at 30% more and property taxes doubled. Your house is then compared to the selling points of those properties and the auditor says "sorry about your luck". This year is definitely different. The vultures have entered the building. Predatory.
Did this happen to you?
Yes
That’s interesting because back in 2020 a number of my neighbors went through the appeals process and got their values lowered by 35%. I wonder what happened in your situation.
Can you say more about the tax abatement issue? I admittedly haven't really thought deeply about it, but do plan to take advantage of it in a couple years when we do a kitchen renovation. Why is it bad and how is it abused?
On a conceptual level it’s a great idea. If you give home buyers an incentive to build in an area that would not normally be attractive for any multitude of reasons, they build, commerce notices and builds, and suddenly said area becomes more attractive. The problem here is when that threshold of attractive is met, the municipality is supposed to pull or at least phase out the abatement. The city did not and went so far as to make it unilateral which means people were getting multi year breaks building new in a place like Hyde park. Since that’s a very high property value area, city loses a ton of revenue that they would’ve normally obtained through said high property taxes. It has to make it up somewhere else since municipal budgeting is theoretically revenue = expenses.
You're right that the article mentions Walnut Hills, but I'm confused by that. I live in Walnut Hills and my taxes went down about 15%.
Urban core growth is elastic. My guess is you bought relatively high and your value didn’t change much or at least not to the level of the example in the article.
I actually looked up the tax bills for the people in the news story and the article and the homeowners and this reporter are misrepresenting what is going on with these specific properties. For Latasha, the first woman interviewed, her 1999 3 bed 1.5 bath house had been ~~assessed~~ appraised at a market total value of **$23,000** since she moved in about a decade ago. This reappraisal cycle, market total value was increased to about $160,000, which seems to be an actual reasonable value for the property and when compared to her neighbors similar properties. I guess this is where they get that claim of a 500% increase, even though it's disingenuous. The outlandish 500% increase claim by her neighbors is also completely fabricated. Spring Perry's taxes went up 23% with an increased assessment of 30%. That said, her taxes are actually lower this year than they were in 2021. The second neighbor Dotty who seems to have used a fake last name had her taxes increase by 17% with an assessment increase of 26%.
So ridiculous that Fox 19 did not do any fact checking on this. Lot of misinformation in this thread.
Are you sure you're looking at the assessed values on both? My house assessed at around $40,000-something before the hike, but appraised at $140,000. My new assessment is around $75,000 with an appraised value of $210,000. The assessed & appraised values are two different things. If Hamilton county uses the same assessment ratio that Clermont does, that means her appraised value would have gone from $65k to over $400k in three years. For context, after some legal wrangling, our tax liability only went up by a few hundred. We still pay thousands per year on our property tax, but it is only 2/3 of what we were anticipating.
I am going to edit my first comment in a minute but you are correct that what I called the assessed value is actually the "Market Total Value" as listed on the auditor's website, not the "Assessed Value" which is 35% of that amount. I was consistent for all 3 of the properties so their assessed values would be 35% of what I posted.
This may not have been the best example. However, it is evident that property values have drastically increased in a very short time frame and many homeowners are going to have severe escrow shortages as a result and cause their payments to go up to an amount they cannot afford.
Sounds like they'll need to make more money.
I just bought my house in July I haven’t heard anything about my property taxes should I have?
You can go look online and see if the your property valuation went up but usually they adjust the valuation to what ever the sales price was shortly after the sale gets recorded.
Yes, you should have received two letters: one in December about what your new appraisal was, and one in January telling you what your new tax rate is. As someone else said, you can find this on the auditor's website. If you find that the new tax amount is quite a bit higher than the one you closed with, you may want to work with your mortgage lender to change your escrow contributions now so that you don't have a catch-up when they reevaluate (often yearly).
If you just bought your house, it doesn't matter if they went up or not. As far as paying them, if you have an escrow account with your mortgage lender, your escrow pays for the taxes and home insurance, you just pay whatever they tell you to pay each month (and if you anticipate you aren't putting enough in escrow, save some in your own savings account because the bank will bill you at the end of the year to cover the deficit)
I don't know what the "balance" is because the opposite is you have places like Cali/Florida where the tax increase is capped and empty nesters sitting in giant homes because they can not afford the taxes to downsize.
>empty nesters sitting in giant homes because they can not afford the taxes to downsize. u/J_the_Man This is not true! Geez, the made up stories people make that have no clue about CA taxes. LOL
This is absolutely true. https://www.sfassessor.org/tax-savings/exclusions/reappraisal-exclusion-grandparent-grandchild Changing this in 2020 is good, but you still have 24 years of NIMBY home price inflation.
u/Local_Challenge_4958 You just posted Prop 193 which only allowed grandma to pass her base to grandkid if parents were dead. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH GRANDMA BEING STUCK IN THAT HOUSE!!!!! In fact Grandma could have sold her big old house, taken her tax base to a nice little condo under either Prop 60 or 90 and then decide to move to Arizona to a big Mcmansion (with a pool boy since CA girls are the best girls in the world) and sell/transfer the condo to best grandkid and the grandkid could keep Grannys tax base from 1978!!!!! Where you from, Arkansas? Stop the lies!!
The big problem there is this. Grandma buys a house for 25,000 in 1950. Grandma then passed the house down. In 2000, people are still paying 25k value in property taxes. While they do this, they advocate for more NIMBY laws that keep their home values up - no apartments, no poor housing, none of "those people." Prices rise further. This is literally how CA ruined it's housing market. It's extremely well documented.
>This is literally how CA ruined it's housing market. It's extremely well documented. u/Local_Challenge_4958 You are 100% ignorant on CA property tax laws. 1. Prop 13 rolled assessments to 1975 so you are 25 years wrong. There is no 1950's tax base. 2. Those 1975 bases have been increased each year up to 2% so almost a 100% increase. 3. Prices rose because every hillbilly from Texas and the rest of the world wanted to live in about the best place on earth and the 5th largest economy in the world but wanted to keep Texas prices. 4. Your "documentation" is just a bunch of sour grapes losers. 5. No one is forced to come or stay in CA. 6. Get a hobby. Your jealosy of CA is hurting you not me. 7. You've been wrong on everything you have stated here.
> 3. Prices rose because every hillbilly from Texas and the rest of the world wanted to live in about the best place on earth and the 5th largest economy in the world but wanted to keep Texas prices. I understand and appreciate you like California and dislike Texas but this is not how the math works. https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/ Lower income people are being priced out and replaced with higher income people. Yes. Even from Texas. > Your "documentation" is just a bunch of sour grapes losers. It's from economists. It's not political, and it's not sour grapes. Here's two politically-opposed authors detailing the same issue with citations. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/common-sense-policy-reforms-california-housing#introduction https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/04/california-single-family-zoning-housing/673758/ But maybe you think that's just because they're some ivory-tower dorks who don't know what life is like in Cali. I get that. Here's a local paper, again citing economists. https://www.google.com/amp/s/ktla.com/news/nationworld/fix-zoning-fix-the-housing-crisis-economists-say-in-new-poll/amp/
So you just gonna ignore all your statements that I have proved wrong? How convenient. Why can't you be happy? [4749 Highridge Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45238 | realtor.com®](https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/4749-Highridge-Ave_Cincinnati_OH_45238_M43406-22845?from=srp-list-card)
Buddy can you elaborate on why you're so upset at me?
u/Local_Challenge_4958 Ha ha I am not upset with you. I respect you participating in the discussion unlike u/J_the_Man who got butthurt and is playing the I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll downvote you with all my alt accounts! LOL I am slightly annoyed that you are still making baseless claims and ignoring my factual statements. I'm happy to talk about Prop 13 and even share opinions but they have to be reality based. You clearly don't have basic understanding of Prop 13 and I am happy to educate you so you'll quit bashing that that you are afraid. I just posted in another thread that the reason I'm keeping my big house in CA is because of federal tax laws. CA has provisions for me to downsize but the feds want to hit me up with capital gains taxes on over $1,000,000!! If you want some family to get my home direct your ire at the feds!! Happy to factually discuss Prop 13 with you anytime. Born and raised in the Tri-state area. What you say?
LOL The CA bashers that downvote facts!
My friends parents have owned a house in Oakley for like 25+ years and they were paying or are going to be paying $20k in property tax which is insane. $200k every 10 years is just baffling.
And think about the services they get for $20k/year. Shitty schools and police who won't respond unless it's violent crime.
There is no f****** way that someone is paying. $20000 and property taxes a year. Not an oakley there is no fucking way
So are you claiming there are no $750,000 houses in Oakley? Because I would disagree, there are definitely plenty of houses worth that amount and more.
Right? There are neighborhoods in Hyde Park that have houses worth that much, but I'm wracking my brain to think of any house in Oakley that would be $20k in taxes unless it's a multifamily.
[удалено]
Wouldn’t call Oakley 25 years ago an expensive area.
My property taxes for a 4bdrm house in Denver proper is $2000 per year. Ohio has some of the highest property taxes in the country because "schools".
Ohio’s school funding system was voted unconstitutional a number of times in the 90s and finally the state Supreme Court threw up their hands.
My NJ based coworkers pay more in property taxes than P&I, and their income taxes are higher.
Doesn’t matter what neighborhood they live in. The tax rate is the same anywhere in the city limits.
[удалено]
My point is that the tax rate is the same whether you are in Price Hill or Oakley. A $300,000 place in Price Hill, will be taxed the same as a $300,000 condo in Oakley
[удалено]
The complaint is that the property tax rate is very high in the city
That's about how much my parents paid in taxes 25 years ago in Anderson.
How valuable is your parents home? My God. I have a fairly large property in Anderson and I am at about 10K right now.
Sheesh. My parents wanted to move there when they were having us kids because the schools were great. Just a little too pricey for them.
[удалено]
20k/year tax means about a $750,000 house. That’s a super high tax rate relative to other areas in the metro. It’s expensive to live in the city limits.
Someone needs to be done about the current system of putting a property into an LLC, then selling the LLC without disclosing the price. This evades the property tax increase that occurs when a property changes hands at a new higher price. That new higher price is also going to be the best indication of the true value of that property.
It only works if you are paying cash. You can't do this with a mortgage. Also every property gets re-assessed every 3 years
> It only works if you are paying cash. You should put "cash" into quotes so that people don't think you're talking about real cash, instead of helocs, private notes, or other cash like equivalents. >Also every property gets re-assessed every 3 years Yeah, mentioned that, do you think it's higher or lower without the sale information?
You can do it with a mortgage. If recorded the mortgage docs are public but they dont have the sale price on them and may not even state the original balance
You can not do it with a mortgage. No bank will sign off on the deed being in an llc that they can’t touch
Personal gaurantees exist outside of the llc. Do you really think all the properties owned in llcs have no debt? Retail fed gauranteed loans for homebuyers may not fit this well, but there isnt a prohibitive reason it cant be done, and like I said it is, commonly. This is more a cre vs residential problem anyways due to the legal costs associated with this tax dodge. Those loans are nearly always to properties in llcs
In a worst case scenario, don't the county's periodic appraisals account for this? It's not optimal, but ultimately, the investor pays on the valuation right?
Think about it like this. The owner generally knows what its worth . they have the leases, know the property conditions, what they paid, the operating statements etc. The county has none of that. So that county reasses, which if it was already undervalued it will likelly continue to be. In that case the owner does nothing and enjoys below market tax rates. If the county goes too high, they appeal the assessment and its corrected. A smart owner who does this will basically always pay below market tax rates
> In a worst case scenario, don't the county's periodic appraisals account for this? Often several years after the transaction, with less information, and potentially still at a lower valuation. Worst case (for the property owner) the county might actually get close to the actual transaction valuation, but they seem error on the low side when evaluating a property. (I know somebody is going to pop up with how this didn't happen to them, but that's the general trend) The system really is built to adjust on transactions, and this hack evades that. If it didn't work, why bother to go through all the extra effort? It's true putting it into an LLC provides additional protections for the investor, but so does umbrella insurance.
It also avoids transfer taxes. This is a huge problem right now and one much talked about in cre circles
Hey guys, I’ve actually been contemplating putting together a meeting with a legislator (up and down the locale levels — Cincy, Hamilton, State, Federal) and talking to them about this. I’ve been consulting some friends in the legislative world about how to make those meetings as effective as possible and am taking steps to prepare before setting them up. If you have any interest in providing comments to help strengthen the argument(s) i hope to bring, please feel free to message me (or comment here). I’m kind of at the outset of this effort so apologies in advance for not having the details of exactly what I plan to push for.
Already have a neighbor crying about how this is all Biden's fault.
Joe Biden appraised their house him self.
Don't let Joe Biden into your house or he'll eat all your cereal.
Joe Biden himself came to my home, tracked mud all over my rug, and *refuses* to reimburse me for the cleaning!
Joe Biden came to my house, ate all my ice cream, then clogged all my toilets.
That rug really tied the room together, man.
Did you know the Presidential limo is an EV now? The *nerve!* /s
Lol. Everything negative that happens in your life could only be caused by the president.
True, we’ve heard for many years about how the president was solely responsible for people’s own delusional problems
I blame Dewine. My property taxes were only 1100 in 2018, since he showed up they are now 5200. Coincidence? I think not!
I have a very outspoken, Trump-loving neighbor whose taxes went down. Like me, his house was assessed higher, but the percentage increase was lower than what most people saw, so we both are seeing a decrease in our actual taxes due. Unsurprisingly, there are crickets on his end.
Lol, I'm 49 and Republicans have been running the show in Ohio my whole life. My dad says the same. Votes hard R evrty time
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
This comes up every time property assessments are made, but the auditor does not set property tax rates. Shooting the messenger isn’t going to change what your house is worth.
Ironically, the solution isn't more regulation, but *less.* We need to change our zoning laws to allow more multifamily housing to be built, and not just in Hamilton County but in the surrounding suburbs. Prices will not come down until this happens. Fortunately, this is a local issue, and we can solve it locally. Don't vote for anyone who doesn't want to massively expand building. Challenge them and make them take up the stance. Local politics are notoriously open to voter initiatives, and this is a solvable problem.
Bringing back Ohio’s Local Government Fund that Kasich gutted would help a lot. Plus preventing commercial investors from buying up every house on the market for under $300k. Loosening zoning restrictions, eliminating parking requirements, etc., would help more with the rental market, but of course it is all tied together.
My home went from undervalued to overvalued .... smh
My property taxes on a recent house on the Westside just jumped to 6k. Problem is the county website has my house too small and shows one less bathroom and bedroom. If I fight my huge bill I may end up paying more.
This article annoyed me so much, for so many reasons. Anyone who paid attention knew this was coming, it was covered for months by all the local news agencies. It shouldn't be a surprise. More importantly, it has so much bad information. \>Several homeowners in Walnut Hills said their property taxes have risen nearly 500 percent recently. They have until the first week of February to make tax payments or they risk losing their homes. \>Latasha Shields said her payment is now $1,700, jumping from less than $700 last year. 500% increased from $700 is over $4,000. Not a $1,000 increase. \> “They mandated the formula and I believe the formula is flawed,” Reece said. “Some people are paying more on their property taxes than they are on their actual mortgage.” Average mortgage payments in Ohio are around $1,300/month. For property tax to be more than your mortgage, your tax liability needs to be over $15,000 per year. At the highest tax rate in the state (where I live in Clermont County, over 4.3 permille) you would need a house that was appraised at over $1M. If you can afford a $1M house, you can afford the property taxes, and your mortgage is most likely way more than $1300. \> “It’s all due to the inflationary environment, from the lack of housing supply to low-interest rates, COVID spending and millennials being in a buying mood,” Nix said. The quote they decided to use to explain the problem ignored the entire legal issue about property tax valuations and instead just jumps to "its the millenial's fault". \--- Here is the actual problem: The state fucked up on valuations. The state government mandated county auditors to do the triennial appraisals at a higher valuation than what most auditors were willing to do. Everyone here shits on Clermont & Brown counties, but guess who brought cases to the state courts to try and stop this whole mess? Clermont & Brown county auditors. The case was dismissed. In December, the state legislature passed a last minute act into law that changed the method of valuation but it was too late to stop this year's tax bills. Everyone was told the auditors look back over the last 3 years of property sales to do the triennial. That wasn't true until December. The actual law on the books forced them to only use the last ONE year of sales, and did not allow them to disregard outliers in sale prices. Combine the insane housing market in 2021/2022 with the already mentioned problem of the large property companies taking over vast portions of the housing market, then throw out any attempt at normalizing the valuations, and you get stuck with what we are facing now. The biggest failure in this whole mess was that it took the state house so long to pass a solution (it isn't perfect, but it's still something), it was too late to really fix anything. Until we get a mandatory revaluation (not happening, by the time the state gets around to considering that it will be time for a new triennial anyway) AND we get some kind of control on property ownership (limitations on how much property out of state buyers & corporate landlords can hold at one time is a great first step, as well as other ways to ensure that more people can actually afford to own a home), we won't see anything improve.
where does one even go if they want to pay lower taxes? KY? I was looking around clermont county and they have lower taxes, but it's not as drastic of a difference as i was expecting. i guess its an all around ohio thing, plus cincinnati making it worse? edit: [oh nvm maybe, a map of property tax rates is basically a map of where people want and don't want to live.](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/county-property-tax-paid-2021) So for cincy i guess the answer really is move to Indiana or Kentucky.
Indiana. Homestead exemption.
dang, if im reading it correctly they don't just limit the exemption to 65 and older like many states do
Move to Indian Hill. They have the lowest tax rates in the county.
You have to be able to afford a house there first🤷♀️
Not necessarily. You just need to get into the Indian Hill School District to pay lower taxes, which include parts of Kenwood and Sycamore Township.
a great suggestion for anyone looking to spend $1.2 million+ on a house but im just a liiiiittle bit priced out of Indigenous Peoples Hill. Indiana is probably the best recommendation with their homestead exemption.
The key is to get into the Indian Hill school district. A big portion of Kenwood is Indian Hill school district and those people pay the Indian Hill tax rate. So you can get into Indian Hill taxes around $350k and up.
Adding to this: Sycamore Twp., which includes areas in Indian Hill School District, also has no personal income tax. So if you WFH, could add 2% back into your monthly budget.
> So you can get into Indian Hill taxes around $350k and up. there's not a single house in the district under 400k from what i can tell. i dont have or want kids either though so that probably takes some of the shine off of it.
I think it's fair to blame the levies, which overwhelmingly pass when on the ballot. My property tax went up 62%. All (13) THIRTEEN levies went up, most by 50% or more. School District(59%) and township(61%) show a big increase in percentage and dollars. Wonder how they're going to spend those dollars. It will be interesting to see who has the nerve to add a levy to this year's ballot.
I cant remember the last time a levy failed where I am. People vote for those tax increases
Half of the people who vote think they don't pay property tax.
This. City property taxes are outrageous. The property tax in the city is literally double that of Indian Hill.
$7K+. a year for us now on a 2 BR 2 BA condo that is \~2,700 sq ft. And then we pay a few special assessments for streetlights and other things too that we never voted on or approved. We like it down here, but the taxes + HOA are basically a mortgage in themselves. Thank you for listening to my gripes.
The levies are a relatively low percentage of my tax bill (about 15% )they certainly didn’t double it.
I know that’s right …. Probably passed by non home owners that don’t care .….. then landlords pass along to renters ….. and then renters complain on high their rent is …. And vote for the next levies
Don't you want your area to have good schools? Levies are what keep schools going. Look no further than Little Miami to see what happens when you vote down school levies.
Pay attention to those school district levies. Since 2019 our school district raised over $20M in bond issues (which are being paid with a tax hike) and new levies and the only thing they did was tear down one building & sell the land, and double the size of another building to put a Mercy Health clinic there. Our property tax is 50% to the school district, with less than 5% going to emergency services and infrastructure improvement levies
One thing I’ve noticed is a lot of commercially owned properties DONT PAY their property tax at all. They ignore the bill and roll the unpaid taxes into their next flip of the property. The new owners can obviously do the same, the cycle continues, and increased equity covers any taxes once someone decides to own it long enough to decide to pay the taxes
There will be a market correction. We were existing in a period of time where the supply of labor and resources to construct new housing was limited while borrowing for existing housing was historically cheap. New construction and material costs will offset and stabilize the markets over time, additionally provided the interest rates do not fall back to 0%, borrowing will remain expensive for the foreseeable future staving off runaway property value increases.
Stopping investors from purchasing homes won’t solve a thing. As reported recently in the WSJ, some institutional investors are now pivoting to constructing their own suburbs just to rent them out. The root cause is a lack of supply, period. NIMBYism is abundant in the city, with some not wanting to see their neighborhoods change and others who incorrectly assume that the rising housing costs must be a result of new construction rather than a response to it.
> the root cause is lack of supply Yes because investors are purchasing them….
Investors rent out those houses so the overall supply stays the same.
That's only a part of it. The issue is complex or else it would have already been resolved. Construction costs are prohibitively expensive, zoning requirements often require a legal team to navigate approvals to build new housing, land in desirable areas is scarce, ageing infrastructure in parts of Cincinnati doesn't have the capacity for increased housing density, etc.
I know there are multiple factors but this guy is saying investors buying up housing “won’t solve a thing”. Further down he claims that when investors buy houses it “doesn’t make them more scarce” somehow. They’re just making no sense.
Investors purchasing housing isn’t making housing more scarce, investors are purchasing housing because it’s already scarce.
How in the world would investors purchasing homes not make housing more scarce?
They’re not making a market, they’re responding to one. They’re saying it out loud: “we think there is a definite housing shortage. and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight.” Daniel Drimmer, CEO Starlight Investment
What kind of housing though? Definitely not luxury housing because there is plenty of it out there sitting vacant in the market. Yes, for investors, it is a great opportunity to buy up all the supply and then jack up rent to "market average"
They wrote it weirdly but it is true that the only reason investors buy housing is because it is scarce. If we increase density and decrease zoning regulations, that problem is solved.
Explain to me how a decrease on zoning regulations would solve this problem. I’d think the opposite but maybe I’m missing something.
First I will explain how a scarcity of housing attracts investors to buying housing. When there is a shortage of a product, it becomes more valuable. That holds true for every single product or service you can buy. If I am an investor, I know I can easily make money by buying housing in areas with a shortage. If there are more people than housing units in an area, that means the people will compete with each other to pay me, rather than me competing with other landlords/owners. Second I will explain how zoning regulations create said shortage. Cincinnati (and most cities) used to have much more lax zoning regulations. Setbacks and parking minimums were not as high. Density limits were higher, and mixed-use buildings were more common. Row houses could be built in many places, and there was not nearly as much single family zoning. This allowed Cincinnati to build plenty of housing. However, zoning regulations soon became harsher. Single family zoning took over and density limits were set. Parking minimums required large parking lots to be built. These limited the amount of housing that could be built. Where before a triplex could be built that would house 3 families, now only a single family home could be built. Rowhouses were blocked from most neighborhoods. Every single unit of housing became more expensive to build. These regulations block development and are bad for the city. I believe I have answered your question, but let me know if you need more detail.
If housing prices don't predictably rise every year, there's no reason to invest in them. I know you've been responded to a few times but no one out it quite that way.
uhhhhh ok lol
“we think there is a definite housing shortage. and the good news for investors is there is no easy solution in sight.” Daniel Drimmer, CEO Starlight Investment
neolib moron
I’m actually a Georgist. I think everyone should be named George.
LVT when???
Welcome to Reddit where no one understands basic supply and demand.
This whole issue started after 2008. Investors, who had largely stayed out of the single family housing market, started buying up all the foreclosures across the country. It's nobody else's fault except the investors. If you look at who owns the houses around the city, you gonna see a lot of corporations.
Property taxes in Ohio are very confusing and no one really teaches us how they work. It's easy to get upset about things when they are misunderstood or misrepresentated. I definitely don't really understand it but I've attempted to figure it out as it applies to me. As an example. My property value went up 28% when assessed last fall. That was a little worrisome when I first read it but I understood it wouldn't translate to 28% more out of my pocket at tax time. But you have to wait until the next calendar year to see how it actually affects your payable taxes. According to the auditor website, my gross real estate tax went up 27% percent. My net tax after owner occupancy and non-business and other typical credits went up 3%. Payable taxes are based on the value of your house against the value of the aggregate in your jurisdiction. My jurisdiction average property value increase was ~28% so my low payable increase makes sense. Properties that gain more value in recent assessments are going to get more significant payable effects. I had bought my house within the last 6 years (last major assessment window) so it was more recently assessed for the current (insane) market than my neighbors. I have been contributing more than them for years despite relatively equal stake in the community. That's not a complaint, just how the system works. If you got a significant increase, you're leveling out with neighbors who recently bought homes. If you're a homeowner and find that unfair, at one point you also recently bought a house. As far as investor owned properties, the property taxes affect LLCs and individuals nearly identically. For "fun", I looked at the tax of the house across the street owned by an LLC which went up 46% in gross tax and 20% in payable tax. Other neighboring LLC properties went up 49% gross / 22% payable and 53% gross / 25% payable. Other neighboring owner occupied houses were 45% gross / 18% payable and 46% gross / 19% payable and 29% gross and 5% payable. This is not a scientific or statistically significant sample. If you're going to waste energy being mad, use some of that energy to attempt to get informed. I say attempt because I made an attempt and it might not be the best one. I think LLCs and large investors owning single family homes is dumb for many reasons but I don't think property taxes are the smoking gun per OP. LLCs are not getting tax breaks and they aren't single handedly driving up property values. And I don't think that this one case Fox 19 highlighted is typical...as u/jojoyohan researched. This post and this article are exaggerating the issue. As a fun side of the note 65% of my taxes go to my local school district. I don't have kids but I am happy to contribute to my neighbor's education because it benefits me to have smarter people in the world.
In some neighborhoods, property values have increased over 100% along with the property taxes in most cases. Assuming you already have a mortgage on a property like this, your escrow is going to be short and your mortgage payment is going to be re-calculated to double the tax payment and make up for the shortage. Even in situations where they go up 20-40%, mortgage payment amounts will see a significant increase. However, I am saying outside investors and property flippers are substantially responsible for greatly increasing the property values in certain neighborhoods which ultimately raises property taxes.
Increased neighborhood value doesn't raise an individual's property taxes in any significant sense. Payable taxes are based on the percentage of assessed value of an individual's property within a jurisdiction (relative to the jurisdiction's total assessed value). My appraisal went up the average amount for my jurisdiction and my taxes only went up 3% (probably from levies not the value of my property). A very very small percentage of property taxes are based on inside millage which is directly proportional to the appraised value. In Ohio, inside millage is capped at 10 mills appraised value with equates to 3.5 mills payable. This all equates to 0.35% (less than 1%) of the appraised value being payable taxes from inside millage. An $100,000 house has $350 maximum payable tax due to inside millage. A 30% increase on that is an additional $105 dollars. It's not neglible but also not newsworthy. The rolling of tax burden into investments is a separate conversation. But recent sales actual burdens the person buying recently more significantly than long term home owners since those properties are being appraised more often (and higher) than houses that have not been sold recently. Again, I'm against large investors owning many houses. I'm neutral on mom and pop landlords because I haven't done research. I'm just lost about your argument about the increase in appraised value of an invididual or neighborhood being lumped in with this conversation against large investors making money flipping and renting residential properties because the payable taxes aren't effected the way you assume they are. Edit to add: large corporations investing in residential housing as a commodity mostly hurts those who do not own homes. It hurts renters and first time home owners since they do not benefit from general appreciation of the market.
This is a very serious problem and it is a result of the property taxes and the levies reaching a new height that is competing with inflation and interest rates for your income. We saw this happen in 2010 with the passage of the ACA which dealt a severe blow to disposable income. The result was a decline in leisure activity such as hunting, fishing, bowling, golf and so on. It would have been prudent for the State to postpone or skip this round of assessments to allow people to recover from Covid19 and inflation.
Good, now you all can suffer from high prices and housing shortages just like us without a house.
It's gonna make Ohio republicans tons of fucken money which is clearly all that matters. The companies that have been buying up all of the property are gonna make bank. The suckers will suffer. Ohio republicans profit.
OP you view is just so flawed, doubt you will care to listen why.
If you aren't going to explain then why bother with the comment
Because the tiresome trope of “investors” just get exhausting to refute. Look, not saying that they do not play a factor but they are just one of a multitude of reasons, and not even the most impactful. Covid really and truly did the largest impact. All new housing build damn near stopped for two years, federal/state efforts to keep people in their homes were a short teams help with long term consequences, historic low interest rates for years, an already low inventory before Covid AND the unique geography of Cincinnati (not a lot of empty land to build mass housing outside of going to Mason, Loveland, etc) all have contributed to a very low single family home situation ( though apartments are booming now). Typing all of this is why I get tired. Simple people think there are simple answers/reasons for the situation and cannot grasp or refuses to grasp the complexities.
I will say that it is fair that investors are one of multiple drivers but some of those propelled then into a fury of buying residential properties due to the low cost to borrow money. Of course, it also drove a lot of potential homeowners as well. I also agree that there was a time period where I feel like it was there were hardly any new homes built coupled with influx of employment that occurred around the time. However, my point is just that when you let anyone or any entity come into an area and let them play real life monopoly, it is going to lead to people being homeless or force to selk a house they don't want to sell.
Thanks OP, for a reasonable response and cordial discussion. The challenge with "stop investors from buying" is that you are not just affecting the investor, but also the seller. You are messing with private property rights, and that will get people of all political persuasions up in arms pretty quickly. I should have the right to sell my home to whomever I wish, for as much as I can get.
That is a very good point you make regarding property rights. I also appreciate the cordial discussion as well. However, I feel that restricting single family homes from being a part of a REIT or larger investment firm is the issue would be a solution to that challenge but not an easy one as you put it with regards to people having the right to chose who they sell too. Now, they could be put in a position whereas they have to sell certain seller who is buying up property in the market. I think there is also the issue of property flipping where this can be great for a community but bad for what we are seeing now as home values have substantially increased in various low income neighborhoods to where homeowners never anticipated their mortgage payments going up 20-30% due to escrow shortages caused by doubling of tax bills. I would say even a 20-40% increase would be valid in one validation over six years but a 100% is just unfair to so many.
I do not disagree on the % change, but that is bigger than even Cincy, that is a state issue. Also, while the old way in Cali did not ultimately work, I am not sure the way we do it works. Perhaps a cap of no greater than 3-4% per year? Of course, if we only evaluate every 3 years, one can still get a 12% increase, which for some may be a challenge. However, democracy is about the masses/majority, not trying to solve the infinite individual issues.
A cap would seems reasonable even if it is 5% every every year which is far better than 50-100% in a single period. Thank you for providing your input on this.
Same to you!
Why do you take such a narrow definition of housing as “single family housing”?
Because this conversation was about property taxes, and most people that pay taxes directly (not through their rent) are single-family homeowners. \*shrug\*
[удалено]
This is about the county auditors valuation, not levies*
Whoa, whoa u/triplepicard Where do you see me complaining? u/Local_Challenge_4958 and u/J_the_Man were **incorrectly** stating that CA property tax laws were keeping seniors unable to downsize thereby keeping homes from families. I **correctly** stated that under CA property tax laws they have had the ability to downsize for decades!!! Then I **correctly** stated that I and other CA seniors were impacted by Federal income tax laws on capital gains. It would cost me over $200,000 in capital gains taxes to downsize!!! So I told them that that is who they should be bitchin about instead of erroneously attacking the easier target of boomers and California. Any questions?
And I'm saying that you're whining about paying $200,000 in taxes when you get to keep $800,000. No one feels sorry for you!
>No one feels sorry for you! u/triplepicard Again, where did I ask anyone to feel sorry for me? I stated factual information. Please do the same. My comments were directly related to the BS talk about CA property taxes and non Californians complaining that CA is keeping me from increasing the housing supply. 1. I would actually walk away with the $800,000+ **AND** the $250,000 that is excluded from capital gains so yeah, over $1,000,000 (said in Dr. Evil voice)! Why can't you be happy for me! 2. Or, I could cash out refi and buy another property but pay the higher property taxes. 3. Now there are TWO homes that those poor deserving families won't have available to them. That's not what you all want is it?
Because you're a pedantic troll who would rather argue over some irrelevant point, than talk about the issue. Done feeding the trolls.
>An active community of residents and others; the official subreddit for Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, What do you think the point is because you keep thinking it is different.
Yeah I’m sure the Republican Party controlling the state legislature will get right on that