Quote:
Originally posted by ltl/fb
Are values for purposes of property taxes really determined on the basis of the highest rent possible? If so, that's wacko.
Unless a buyer is a moron, s/he's going to take into account the current resident(s) and their current rents and then speculate on how long the current residents are going to stay there. The buyer is already speculating on whether the neighborhood as a whole (not just the property in particular) will justify whatever rental payment, etc., as well as any number of other things, so I don't see how that kind of valuation changes anything either.
ETA nice that you noticed your initial response was stupid -- if I knew that the particular car I was buying was more likely to be stolen than another car, I would probalby not be willing to pay as much for it. If I knew it was subject to appropriation, I would probably rent a car. Etc. Sheesh. I expect better of you.
|
ETA--huh? Ty, you mean? (ETA--yeah, fucky mcfuckster, get it right; there's no ty in my name)
Property taxes on rental housing aren't the issue. The point is whether a property owner should be entitled to maximize the income stream from his property. Sure, on one hand, we tolerate zoning regulations that prohibit a factory in a residential area, and usually a factory is a more valuable use of land. But that's different.
Why? Because with rent control, it's precisely the same use, just by a different person, that changes the value. If I can rent to a tenant for $500 or $2000, why should I be forced to rent to the $500 person (assuming a lease is up)? Put differently, is it right that the value of a property can quadruple simply because someone moves out or dies? That seems like a non-sensical form of regulation.
