Democracy In Albany - New York Politics ||

Times Union Goes to Video

By DIA, Section News
Posted on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 04:29:55 AM EST

While I am always quick to criticize local media and politicians, I also give credit where credit is due. And I've got a lot of credit to hand out this morning. The Times Union has done what I believe is its first piece of video reporting/documentary. The topic is the urban blight caused by all of the vacant buildings in Albany (a popular topic around these parts). For their first shot, I think they put together a nice bit. I'll let the video speak for itself which it does quite well. My one comment will be to make note of the woman who couldn't get insurance because of the neighbor's building. If you are a big developer you can't get a tax bill. If you are a working homeowner in a run down neighborhood you can get taxes on your overassessed building, but you can't get insurance. The woman is very calm. I give her credit because I would be angry as hell in her situation.

No direct link. Go to the TU home page and click on the View Our Video link right below the main story.

< Tuffey and Accountability | It's a Budget! >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Related Links

+ TU home page
+ Also by DIA

Times Union Goes to Video | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

it's a great video (none / 0) (#1)
by kateb on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:29:11 AM EST

wonderful content. Looks like it will make a difference.

There was a letter in the TU yesterday from a county official with some important facts on the processes with abandoned buildings. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=629119&category=LETTER&BCCode=OPINION& ;newsdate=10/12/2007

Did you notice a great chunk of these buildings' owners are still paying taxes? Jives with what the mayor said about the problem of distant corporate owners. It's a tough process for a city to commit to, but we're fortunate in Albany because we have a lot of city employees who will do their jobs when they have the room to do it.

I bet I'm not the only person who saw that story and wanted to take the woman who had problems getting insurance to the agent who gave us insurance for 20 years without a claim. It's a racket. Where's the Attorney General?

I've pointed out in the past (none / 0) (#2)
by DIA on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:37:29 AM EST

that the reason these owners are paying taxes is that the city assesses the buildings as if they have no value and thus the tax bills are a few hundred a year at most. Until we address that issue and change the tax structure, this will just continue.

This issue has existed for longer than Jennings has been mayor and yet he is saying they are just putting together a strategy now. Too little, too late.

: Just guessing (none / 0) (#3)
by kateb on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 05:56:18 AM EST

the better way is to address the code violations.
Hard to assess an abandoned building for high taxes. They'd win an appeal on the market value.

[ Parent ]

Assessments (none / 0) (#4)
by 1894 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:17:38 AM EST

kate ... I'm with DIA on the assessments. Many vacant buildings are assessed at $5,000. No pain at all tax-wise, and there hasn't been much in the way of code enforcement. So no pain at all, except for the neighbors of these rotting wrecks ...

There are many examples of buildings that recently sold for $20,000 or $40,000 or some other higher price -- and they are still assessed at $5,000 just because they are vacant. Shouldn't the recent sale price be the "market value?"

Here's one example in my neighborhood: 12 Ten Broeck Street. It changed hands a few years ago for about $70,000. The new owner put a roof on it and did some stabilization and cleanup. It's been back on the market for a while at $193,000. Never mind whether $193k is realisit ... The crazy numbers are the city's $5,000 assessment and its estimate of fair market value at $7,042.

By the way, the theory behind the low assessments was to give owners a tax break and leave more money for rehabilitation of their vacant buildings. Needless to say, that strategy hasn't worked.

there is no one solution (none / 0) (#5)
by DIA on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:19:58 AM EST

of course having code enforcement would be a good first step.

In order to make change via the tax system you need to change the way the assessments are structured. Other communities have done this. You assess properties based on their land value. That way people who want to hold onto vacant buildings are going to pay as much in taxes as their neighbor who is living in the building and investing in it. With this model you also don't penalize people for improving their properties by raising their assessments after they invest in their properties.

Is this unfair to people who are speculating on vacant buildings. Very much so. That is the point.

Fairness ... (none / 0) (#6)
by 1894 on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 06:55:57 AM EST

The city says my house is worth almost double what I paid for it a few years back. But the absentee owner in my example above is assessed at 1/14th of what he paid for his building.

That's fairness for you.

: 1894 (none / 0) (#7)
by kateb on Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 07:16:56 AM EST

You explained something very well. Thank you.
I'm thinking about the approach when you stick it with the higher tax, but then it always comes back to market value when it's challenged. Always. In the present system, it doesn't seem realistic to try to raise them.
But $5,000? I agree. That has to change.

[ Parent ]

Times Union Goes to Video | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden)

create account | faq | search