« Wednesday Events Foreclosures In New and Unusual Places »
January 16, 2008
NYC Property Values Level Off
The large yearly gains in the city’s property values appear to be a thing of the past. The Finance Dept. estimates that city property values rose only 1.44 percent in 2007, a big drop after six years of double-digit increases (in 2006, for example, there was an 18 percent gain). The smaller increase in values is being attributed to declining values in small homes outside of Manhattan. The growth in real estate values over the last several years has helped buoy the city’s economy and contributed to record budget surpluses. The lower assessments may force the city to make increases in the tax rate or end the $400 property tax rebate, according to David Weprin, chairman of the City Council Finance Committee. “This is an indicator that we might be up for some tough fiscal times, and Wall Street isn’t helping, either,” Weprin told the Times. “Property values are no longer going up; they’ve stabilized, and I would expect that’s the trend we’ll see before they go down.”
Gains in NYC Property Values Start to Flatten Out [NY Times]
Home Values Drop, But Taxes Go Up [NY Post]
Growth in Property Market Value Slows [NY Sun]
Photo by crown heist.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3548
Comments
oh what a shame property values will go down.
i for one am shcoked as trees normally grow to the sky
hey the what keep up the good work you do have fans on brownoser
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:19 AM
Aren't almost all houses undervalued/taxed - and limits capped on increases in assessments? And would take years of flat prices (or even decreases) for assessments to rise to real value?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:21 AM
And why is this a bad? If property values remained flat for the next ten years it would be a big net plus for the city's economy. Incomes need to catch up.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:55 AM
Yes, 9:21, a lot of residential property is under-assessed. However, there is the "Actual" assessment (which is "equalized," just to make things more complicated) and the "Taxable" assessment. The Times doesn't make it clear what numbers it is referring to.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:56 AM
Does anyone really believe this data? Manhattan and Prime Brooklyn increased in value 20% last year. Again, location, location, location.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 10:17 AM
Broker alert!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 10:24 AM
There is Market Value and there is Transitional Value. The 1.4% increase is in Market Value.
Homeowners/Taxpayers need to be concerned with the Transitional Value. State law limits assessment increases other than increases based on physical changes to the property. Assessments may not increase more than 6 percent over one year and 20 percent over five years.
This law favors homeowners greatly. When i purchased my home 10 years ago. It had an assessed market value of $192K. Today it is $1.9 million.. 10 times more. However, due to state limitation on increases, i am taxed at $520K instead of $1.9 million, 'saving' myself almost $12K/year in property taxes.
NYC is facing a budget shortfall so to is NY state. One day Albany will figure out that they can bridge a lot of this shorfall by changing this law.
Prepare for much higher property taxes in the near future.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 10:24 AM
Where o where is that fucktard the What when you need him? I mean every other post recently on brownoser either refers to him or uses his lingo. Now that the market is tanking in what he had predicted would be a "Fuck you year" he is MIA?!!? Maybe he is just too much the gentleman to say I told all you asshats so.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at January 16, 2008 11:06 AM
About time. Just like dot com, the bubble built and burst. Time to get back to traditional principles like being qualified for the mortgage and having a down payment, imagine that.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:11 AM
"Homeowners/Taxpayers need to be concerned with the Transitional Value. State law limits assessment increases other than increases based on physical changes to the property. Assessments may not increase more than 6 percent over one year and 20 percent over five years."
You never explained "Transitional Value."
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:11 AM
11:06, I don't believe this is exactly the doom and gloom "The What" predicted nor do I believe this was unexpected. And just like the late 80's and early 90's this will shake out and rebound.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:14 AM
Hey What, did you hear what 11:14 said - Are you gonna stand for that? Sick him boy, sick him. Go get 'em, attack attack.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at January 16, 2008 11:27 AM
"The Finance Dept. estimates that city property values rose only 1.44 percent in 2007, a big drop after six years of double-digit increases"
Finally, a non-conflicted source. Moveover Corcoran!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 11:52 AM
Transitional Value is the value at which homeowners are taxed. It factors in the 6% per year and 20% over 5 year limitation on market value increases.
Heres an example
Year0 Market Value=$100K
Year0 Transitional Value=$100K
Year1 Market Value = $120K(market increases 20%)
Year1 Transitional Value = $106K(100*6% annual limit)
Year2 Market Value = $144K(market increases 20%)
Year2 Transitional Value = $112.4K(100*6% annual limit)
Year3 Market Value = $172.8K(market increases 20%)
Year3 Transitional Value = $119.1K(100*6% annual limit)
Year4 Market Value = $207.4K(market increases 20%)
Year4 Transitional Value = $120K(100*20% five year limit)
Remember, transitional values can only be raised 20% every 5 years.
Year5 Market Value = $248.9K(market increases 20%)
Year5 Transitional Value = $120K(100*20% five year limit)
Year6 Market Value = $298.6K(market increases 20%)
Year6 Transitional Value = $127.2K(120*6% annual limit)
Taxes are computed based on the transitional values not market value. You can find out the value that your tax is based on by looking at your Notice of Property Value.
If Albany increased the annual and 5 year limits on increases property taxes will spike.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:02 PM
All of this cheerleading for the What is making this site look like the audience at a World Wrestling Federation event. I'm waiting for him to appear, bare chested, with too much makeup, a feather boa, and long oily receding hair. He is beating his chest, and flinging a full sized plastic doll dressed in a 3 piece suit around the ring, shouting "I'm coming after YOOOUUUUUU, you fucktard bankers and real estate moguls."
Good for a chuckle, but actually, kinda scary and disturbing.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:17 PM
Thank you, 12:02!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:23 PM
Hello! The What is on vacation in Orlando with the wife and kids, with limited access to e-mail. If this request is urgent, please leave a message and The What will contact you upon his return, you fucktarded asshat. Have a great day!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:28 PM
Actually, it's "billable assessed value."
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:32 PM
Market values will crash back down to transitional values before RE rebounds.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:39 PM
What is a fucktard? Seriously.
Do asshats wear hats on their asses?
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 12:54 PM
Since The What isn't here to oblige, I will. Though I doubt I can match his panache.
To everyone who called me a "bitter renter" just because I wasn't willing to put my firstborn child up as collateral on a 30-year no-interest ARM mortgage in a market that was CLEARLY overpriced: I told you so.
And this is definitely just the beginning. If any of you who bought in the last few years (and had to take out a big mortgage to do so) can sell, I would highly recommend it.
-Sylvia
(Hey, I know that block in the picture. That's St. Francis Pl. in Crown Heights. Great block.)
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 1:57 PM
sylvia--
still bitter tho
bought my house in 2003, renters pay my mortgage for me. lolololololololololol i think i'll ride this out, thx
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 2:41 PM
Yeah, we're not selling either. We do need a place to live the next 20 years and like our house a lot. None of this applies to us or affects us.
This news about property values is most applicable to people thinking about buying, Sylvia, not those who already own a place. So your anger towards those who already own absolutely confirms your bitterness.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:22 PM
I miss the tWhat
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 3:35 PM
Sylvia, I served with THE WHAT: I knew THE WHAT; THE WHAT was a friend of mine. Sylvia, you're no THE WHAT.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:19 PM
Sylvia, My mortgage and maintenance is less than what rent would be. I'm not sweating prices going down.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:21 PM
Sylvia is my ex-wife's name. It's a very, very bad name.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:41 PM
That is a great block.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 4:42 PM
Come back The What. Your missed.
Have a nice evening all you fucktards and asshats!
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 7:23 PM
I'm not sure why people who are so sure of the value of their homes would be so defensive. I'm not angry or bitter. I'm telling you I was right. What in that statement makes you think I'm bitter, or hate homeowners? How bizarre.
3:22: Yes, you do need somewhere to live for the next 20 years. So do I. That's why I'm renting, so I can get the best place for my money right now (rents have NOT caught up with home sale prices) and not have to be tied down to a particular house (and a huge hunk of debt) once housing depreciates. As it obviously already has, since its increase in value last year didn't even keep up with inflation.
I doubt none of this applies to you or affects you. I guess you must work for an industry that will do fine in a recession and not lay you off, live in a neighborhood where crime will never be an issue, no matter what happens to the economy of the city around you (remember the 80s in NYC?), have all your investments/retirement funds in some kind of account that doesn't depend on the stock market going up, up, up, and get paid in a currency that isn't being depreciated (ie, flushed down the drain by inflation/hiked-up interest rates) like the dollar.
If you've really found such a living arrangement in NYC, please let me know. I want in. Until then, I'll keep renting.
-Sylvia
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 8:47 PM
Another renter here who's got your back, Sylvia. The woman speaks the truth. The only difference between me and Sylvia is that I AM a little bitter. Many of the owners on this site are smug greedy f*cks. I mean, how could you not know that this run up was not sustainable? But not to worry. Even if the worst happens, you will still have realized as much as 100% return on your investments. I can't even get excited about a correction because what will it mean? The 2 BR I'm looking for will now cost $650K instead of $800K? The world has gone mad, I tell you. And oh am I ever bitter.
I like to imagine the What looks like Mickey Rourke before the plastic surgery. I heart the What.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 9:52 PM
Another renter checking in ... though I made a little dough on the bubble first.
Maybe it'll look more like this, as reported from near SF, when TSHTF. A 34% haircut over the next 2 years might well be conservative here, no matter what the cheerleaders say this week ...
Property #1 is 124 Birch Ln, San Jose, CA 95127. In fact, both of these properties are in 95127, which is an outlying area of San Jose (confirming my theory that the “tidal wave” of foreclosures would start from the exurbs and work its way inward.) 3BR, 1 bath, 1564 sq.ft. on a nice-sized lot of 7840 sq.ft. Last sale 7/1/2005 for $601,000. Now asking $399,000. Doing the math, we find that is a 34% discount off peak. The MLS lists 3 pictures of the inside and it seems to be in fairly good condition.
This house would rent, in decent condition, for about $1800/mo. Doing the math for 200x rent comes out to $360,000, which I’m guessing the bank would take as an offer.
Posted by: guest at January 16, 2008 10:20 PM
hey 9:52, bought my first 2br for $125k in the 90s lol
is the runup sustainable? like i give a shit! the only way i end up underwater is if global society collapses and we all end up hunting rats for food. so, you know, you can hope for that.
maybe end of the world deathcult terrorism might be a good route for you lol
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 9:04 AM
anyone seen the latest news on the antartic ice shelf and greenland melting from a few days ago? anyone at all worried what a few yards of sea-rise would do to NYC real estate? this summer's arctic ice melt was off the charts, way beyond the wildest predictions. anyone in brownstone brooklyn got katrina-proof flood insurance? if you're in it for the next 20-30 years, you might want to look into that.
Posted by: guest at January 17, 2008 10:37 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.