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:
- Built 2007, 11 rooms (5BR, 4.2 baths), effective living area of 6,551 sq ft; Grade "A"
- 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?
My understanding is that our assessor values the first acre in any property in a 1-acre zoning area at the prevailing rate. Any additional acreage gets valued at 10% of that. So, in round numbers, if a local 1 acre lot is assessed at $300,000, a 2-acre lot would be $330,000, a 3-acre lot $360,000, an 11 acre lot $600,000, a 21-acre lot $900,000, a 31-acre lot 1,200,000, a 41-acre lot at $1,500,000. The rule here seems to be a higher figure than 10% -- perhaps 16%. Still a mighty discount.
Which leads me to wonder how this property will be valued when the 24 houses are complete. Will it remain 2 lots, with the 84% discount on the "excess" over basic 1-acre lots? (I understand the rest of the neighborhood to have 2-acre zoning, so the 1-acre lot puzzles me .)
Or will the land disappear completely from the assessment roles, as it has at River Oaks (19 or so acres), 631 Long Ridge Road, where what are to the normal eye single family homes show up as landless condominiums? (Is that why its advertising calls it "a privileged place?")
Take a look at the Windermere brochure, and then tell me for how many years the rest of Stamford's taxpayers ought to subsidize the folks who are willing to pay the builders $3 million to live in North Stamford. http://www.windermereonthelake.com/pdf/windermere_brochure.pdf
It seems to me that the common elements -- buildings and land -- need to be valued fully for tax purposes. [As do the common elements in the various property-owners' associations in Stamford, such as ALC and Sea Beach Associations.]
6 months? 1 year? 3 years? How welcoming must we be? How should that land be valued?
We need to revalue again, soon. And we need to require that River Oaks and Windermere On The Lake get treated appropriately. I hope the Board of Reps will stay on top of this. If Windermere's 24 homes sell at $3 million each, that would add $72 million to the Grand List (minus the current $4.7 million valuation) -- not bad on a $24 billion grand list. Less than half what the Trump Parc might add -- say, $1 million average for each of 185 condos, on a $9 million lot. (Interesting that 1/2 acre downtown is worth $9 million, and 70 or so acres in North Stamford can be assessed at $4.2 million, isn't it?)
I hope clustering the homes in Windermere doesn't work out to be a device for getting a low assessment for tax purposes. We shouldn't have to subsidize our wealthiest residents. Too many people struggle to meet their own costs of living; they should not have to provide subsidies for those who can afford far more.
Comments