StamfordCT

Artificial Turf thought

The other day I saw a TV news story on a child too young to read the signs in the NYC playground about keeping shoes on who suffered serious and painful burns on the soles of his feet when his bare feet touched the black rubbery surface that was apparently put there to minimize dust and produce soft landings near slides and swings -- on a hot day.

What is the artificial turf like on a hot day when a child -- or teen or adult player for that matter -- falls on it? Will the temperature burn skin?  Will the texture produce abrasions if she or he slides on it?  And what is it like for those sitting on the sidelines in bright sun on a hot day?

Has this been thoroughly checked out?

The ALC Beach ... now available for Hotel Guests ... and subsidized by the other 99.9% of us

The Chesterfield Inn, in its prior incarnation, advertised its access to the private beach owned by the ALC (Auldwood-Lanark-Chesterfield) Association of homeowners.

Every house on the market which has access to that beach also advertises same in its ads. Owners and brokers understand this is a valuable asset. Not every home on Auldwood, Lanark and Chesterfield Roads has access; some lack access because they're on the wrong side of the road.   So clearly the right to use this beach is a valuable asset. 

But how valuable?  The assessor doesn't yet seem to think it is worth much.  Where smaller waterfront lots (as small as 1/3 of the size of the ALC beach, at 0.17 acre) are assessed at $1,181,250, and one of 0.19 acre is valued at $1,372,900, the private association beach of 0.54 acre is valued at a mere $158,520, and in 2008 pays an annual property tax of  ... are you ready? $258 -- less than a dollar a day!   On a property that would likely would have sold for at least $2,000,000 at the time of the recent revaluation.

Valuing "excess" land

I've come across another interesting group of assessments, just down the street from those in the post below this one.  They are at 320,  334,  336 and 333 Stamford Avenue.  (These are all "70% values" -- divide each by 0.7 to get to the market value the assessor is assigning.)

• 320 and 334 Stamford Avenue are each 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre), and is assessed at $536,970;
• 336 Stamford Avenue is 20,000 square feet (0.46 acre), and is assessed at $574,420;
• 333 Stamford Avenue is 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre), and is assessed at $628,110.

So the first 10,000 square feet in this immediate neighborhood is assessed at $536,970.  The incremental 10,000 square feet is $37,450 more -- 6.97%.  The difference between the 20,000 sq ft property and the 30,000 sf property is $53,690.  These values prevail until one reaches the direct waterfront properties -- despite the fact that every non-waterfront property that has even seasonal water views mentions that prominently in every real estate ad.

When will Windermere Get Assessed?

Houses are for sale at 191 Erskine Road, with asking prices from $3.195 million.

Yet the only assessments, as best I can tell, are these:
191 Erskine  parcel 001-3112    1,211,839 sq ft  (27.8 acres)
2007 valuation $1,562,090
2006 valuation $3,032,460
Current Annual Tax Bill: $23,681

191 Erskine parcel 001-3113  1,973,268 sq ft (45.3 acres)
2007 valuation: $2,281,450 for land; $551,330 for building; $38,830 for outbuildings and extra features -- total, $2,871,610
2006 valuation $1,030,750 for land.
There are two buildings shown on this 2nd parcel:

1. Built 2007, 11 rooms (5BR, 4.2 baths), effective living area of 6,551 sq ft;  Grade "A"
2. Built 2007, 13 rooms, (4.2 baths), effective living area of 6,037 sq ft; Grade "A"

Current Annual Tax Bill: $43,534

193 Erskine Road, parcel 000-6782  43,560 sq ft (1.0 acre)
2007 valuation: $306,550
2006 valuation: $304,620

Adding together the total 2007 valuation, I get $4,740,250.  Divided by 0.7, to bring them up to supposed market value (a Connecticut law whose logic escapes me mandates assessments at 70% of true market value.  This should be abolished; it only adds confusion and obfuscation!), we get $6,771,786. 

If the first 2 houses sell for $3 million each, the remaining valuation will be ... what?

Assessment Issues: neighboring lots valued very differently

How can two lots, of equal size, just a few doors apart on a residential street, be assessed at very different levels?

Clearly, our assessor is not valuing the land first, and treating the existing house as the residual between the total value of the property and the land value -- which is the correct and just way to assess property.  Something else is going on.

The properties where this shows up most clearly are both 0.35 acres, at 268 and 288 Stamford Avenue. 

• #288 is valued at $555,530; while two doors north,
• #268 is valued at just $360,000. 

Similarly, two houses with larger lots, both 0.44 acres, get very different valuations:

• #278 is valued at $369,610, while across the street,
• #279 is valued at $570,700!

My guess is that the land is undervalued for some of the 1976 houses, and that the houses themselves are overvalued.   I hope this sort of thing will be corrected in our next revaluation, and that we will revalue no later than October 1, 2009.