So let’s see, all of a sudden use of an asset is a criteria for reducing or eliminating property taxes?
Handrinos hopes they will not have to pay their latest tax bill, which he said runs close to $11,000.
“We appealed the (latest) taxes. We have already applied for (an abatement) and we have an April 15 appointment,” Handrinos said. “We cannot use the property the way we see fit — or for any purpose. It’s not economically feasible for us to fix it and we don’t intend to fix it.”
“We’re looking to pay zero (taxes), because we cannot use it,” Handrinos added.
Gee, all those shorefront property lines that extend into the flood plains, or are unbuildable due to wetlands, or other natural obstacles should start dusting off those appeal letters.
In the world of finance, an asset, is an asset is an asset. Whether your money sits in a a low bearing interest account or a high yield account, you are still taxed on what you have. One of the reasons Connecticut has such a messed up property tax system is that property taxes are calculated on too many theoretical uses.
I’ve never liked the fact that some people are essentially paying taxes on unrealized gains. If you bought a house 30 years ago, and have held it, your property taxes should not be based on what you could theoretically sell it for, since that price can onlly be determined at the point of sale. Rising property taxes is what drives long term residents, especially those on fixed incomes to leave a community.
But back to 93 East Ave. Clearly the building itself, like much of the real estate in Norwalk, is not the key driver of the property tax valuation. It’s the land. And the land isn’t going anywhere.
source: The Hour, Property taxes due even amid demolition delay, march 17, 2008
