StamfordCT

Those Who Sweat For It

I stumbled across this in a 106 year old weekly newspaper called "The Public."   I think it has relevance for much of Stamford's land.  The numbers might have changed, but the pattern hasn't.  Gains on land value DON'T come out of thin air, and we ought to think clearly and thoughtfully about who is  rightly entitled to them.  (I didn't say "legally entitled" -- laws evolve; they may not exactly keep up with justice or logic.)  How much does Stamford collect in a transfer tax?  (And I'm not saying that a transfer tax is a just way, either.  But that doesn't minimize the seriousness or importance of the questions.)

THOSE WHO SWEAT FOR IT. From "the Pride of Telfalr," by Blmore Elliott Feake. Harper Bros.

"Here are some very interesting papers—to me," observed Davenport, socially taking them up. "They are the abstract and deed of the Holbrook farm, out in Turtle township. I bought the farm on Tuesday, held it two days, sold it on Thursday and made $2,000."

Bowman started.

"That's more money than I make in a year," said he.

"It's more than I make in two days," answered Morris, laughing. Perhaps he was not wholly blind to the operations going on behind Bowman's high, white scholarly forehead, and rather enjoyed the situation.

"It's easy money for you, Morris, but somebody sweat for it," the minister could not help saying.

"Yes, I have thought of that," said Davenport. "But with me it's come easy, go easy."

"In that case I don't know that you could do better than let $50 of it go toward the piano for the Sunday school," suggested Bowman, only half in earnest.

"I'll do it," said Davenport, and wrote Bowman a check for the amount. "Bui did you ever stop to think just who it was that sweat for that money? Not the man who has just bought the farm, for he will make money on the investment. Not Holbrook, who has just sold the farm, for he bought the land for $30 an acre and sold it for $100, and has lived off It for a quarter of a century besides, and lived well. Not the first white man that owned it, for he got the tract and thousands of acres besides from the Indians for a barrel of cheap whisky. Not the Indians, for they never did anything for it except to hunt over it."

"I should say the people who sweat for that money were the laborers who have worked on the land all these years and improved it."

"No, for they received a due wage for their labor. Now, I'll tell you who it was. Not to go back too far, it was the people who made the State of Illinois, guaranteeing protection to life and property. It was the people who built the cities of this and neighboring States, creating a market for the wheat and corn and stock which came off that farm. It was the railroads which made it possible to carry this wheat and corn and stock to a market. It was the men who made the steel which made the railroads possible. These people, thousands upon thousands in number, sweat for that money, as I see it."

Remember Leona Helmsley's statement?  "We don't pay taxes.  The little people pay taxes."  She wasn't talking tax evasion -- she was describing how we've structured ourselves.

Lawson Purdy: The Influence of Taxation on the Prosperity of Cities

Reprinted in The Public, October 6, 1906

THE INFLUENCE OF TAXATION ON THE PROSPERITY OF CITIES

A Paper Read by Lawson Purdy of New York
Before the League of American Municipalities,
in Session at Chicago, September 26, 1906.

In 1873, Enoch Ensley, a wealthy planter of Tennessee, wrote to Governor Brown asking him to call a special session of the legislature to amend the constitution so that changes could be made in the tax laws of Tennessee. The tax rate of Nashville was three and one-half per cent and of Memphis four per cent, and Mr. Ensley said that the burden on business was insupportable. Great land owner as he was, however, Ensley did not urge a search for new sources of revenue, but rather the application of the "rule or motto" which, he said, "It would be well for the State to adopt and have cut into the stone at the capitol (in large letters and have them gilded), in the Senate chamber, the hall of the House of Representatives and in the governor's office, . . . to-wit:

"Never tax anything
That would be of value to your State,
That could and would run away, or
That could and would come to you."

This rule laid down by Ensley has become an axiom, but before it can be applied the constitutions of about thirty-five States must be amended by repealing those despotic limitations on legislative power which are not found in the earlier constitutions, and which should find no place in the constitution of any free people. Because of constitutional and statutory restraints upon the power of cities we need discuss only what can be accomplished in most cities by executive officials under existing laws.

Conditions of Prosperity.

City officials often regard the city as apart and distinct from the individual citizens, and sometimes therefore uphold policies which appear to be in the interest of the city corporation, although opposed to the interests of the citizens. This is, of course, a short-sighted view. In reality nothing can be good for the city which is bad for the citizen, nor bad for the city which is good for the citizens. Again, many consider the interest of classes and speak of what will be advantageous to manufacturers or shopkeepers or land owners. This, too, is a mistaken attitude. Citizens should be regarded alike as men, and not as the owners or users of some kind of property. All depend upon the workers who render service for service, and it is fair therefore to consider the interest of all citizens as bound up in the interest of those who earn their living; and that city may be regarded as the most prosperous in which it is easiest and most agreeable to earn a living.

The interests of the city and of its citizens are identical. Nevertheless, they may be viewed from both standpoints.

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.

Puzzles in Stamford's 2007 assessments

I'm finding some puzzling things in the October, 2007 Stamford assessment database, and wonder how they might be explained.

Assessing Stamford's Parks: Public, Private and Very Private

I stumbled across some interesting data in the  October 1, 2007 assessment.  Here are the assessments for some of Stamford's public parks (just the land, excluding any improvements):

1. Cove Island (1241 Cove Rd)   40.41 acres  $34,926,160 (at 100%, $49,894,514)
2. Cove Island Marina (1125 Cove Rd)  21.09 acres $25,497,960 (at 100%: $36,425,657)
3.  Cummings Park (0 Shippan Ave) 79.29 acres $101,960,500 (at 100% $145,580,714)

4. West Beach (0 Shippan Ave)  3.62 acres $15,707,060 (at 100% $22,438,657)
5. Czescik Park (0 Shippan Ave) 8.20 acres $11,746,550 (at 100%  $16,780,786)
6. Sterling Farms (1347 Newfield Ave) 132.50 acres $12,985,000 (at 100%, 18,550,000)

7. Lione Park (0 Stillwater Rd) 9.2 acres $12,820,060 (at 100%, $18,314,371)
8. Scalzi Park (0 Bridge St) 48.1 acres $20,855,980 (at 100% 29,794,257)
9. Hubbard Heights Golf Club (0 Stillwater Rd) 82.2 acres $8,055,600 (at 100%, $11,508,000)

The Stamford Advocate property ... land, not buildings

A recent article in the Stamford Advocate announced the sale of the downtown Stamford property which was, until a few months ago, the home of the newspaper.  It began,

A Norwalk developer confirmed yesterday it entered into an agreement to buy the former Advocate building in Stamford and Greenwich Time building in Greenwich from Tribune Co. for an undisclosed amount.

Funding Infrastructure: A Dedicated Funding Stream

A recent article in the Stamford Advocate, Dodd touts transit-funding bill in Stamford (3/25)

STAMFORD - During an appearance yesterday at the Urban Transitway construction site, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., called for major national investment in roads, trains, bridges and other infrastructure.

Dodd came to town to promote his bill that would set up an independent national bank for such projects. The bank would designate regionally significant projects for loans, loan guarantees or other financial help and issue tax-exempt bonds to finance them.

Dodd said the United States needs a national policy and a dedicated funding stream for maintaining infrastructure, rather than leaving it to politicians to fight for money for individual projects.

It may be a dry topic, but it's important, he said.

"It normally glazes over the eyes of the most determined listener," Dodd said. "I'm proud to be in a city that cares about it."

Is LVT the answer? It depends what the question is.

The title for this post was prompted by an article in the NYT about people not raised on farms deciding to become farmers, particularly in places near large cities.  It seems that local food was said to be the answer to a number of questions.  I'm generally in favor of it, but I'm not sure it is the answer to as many questions as its supporters claim.  That doesn't make "local food" a bad thing; just not the answer to as many questions as it might seem.

But the title for this post sprang to mind.  It seems to me that Land Value Taxation is the answer to a lot of very important questions.