Noise is Not Less Taxing in District
It’s frustrating when the law allows a person’s right to peace and quiet to be violated on and inside one’s property. It’s doubly frustrating when the District of Columbia tax man could care less.
My neighbor today received a letter from the D.C. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals, which denied my neighbor any reduction of her 2006 property tax increase of 25%.
My neighbor explained, “A quick look on the D.C. Property Tax Assessment shows that our assessment increased by 25% compared with 9-14% for all of our neighbors, many with the same use code (24) and some with a different use code (11). We truly can’t see any justification why our increase is more than double of our neighbors’ increase.”
She cited a number of reasons, including this related to amplified noise:
In her appeal to the D.C. Board, she included a comparison of her property to similar properties located one or two blocks away. These other properties saw tax increases much lower than my neighbor’s 25%--and those properties are much less, if at all, impacted by the amplified noise.
As with death and taxes, noise, too, is a part of life. But burdensome amplified noise that hinders the enjoyment of one’s property should be a factor in lowering real property taxes.
My neighbor said she plans to file another appeal.
My neighbor today received a letter from the D.C. Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals, which denied my neighbor any reduction of her 2006 property tax increase of 25%.
My neighbor explained, “A quick look on the D.C. Property Tax Assessment shows that our assessment increased by 25% compared with 9-14% for all of our neighbors, many with the same use code (24) and some with a different use code (11). We truly can’t see any justification why our increase is more than double of our neighbors’ increase.”
She cited a number of reasons, including this related to amplified noise:
“We are also plagued with disruptive fundamentalists who use loud amplifiers on our street to preach messages about hate every weekend. We cannot simply go home to avoid listening to this since it can be heard even with our doors and windows closed.”
In her appeal to the D.C. Board, she included a comparison of her property to similar properties located one or two blocks away. These other properties saw tax increases much lower than my neighbor’s 25%--and those properties are much less, if at all, impacted by the amplified noise.
As with death and taxes, noise, too, is a part of life. But burdensome amplified noise that hinders the enjoyment of one’s property should be a factor in lowering real property taxes.
My neighbor said she plans to file another appeal.
posted by Klav at 6:09 PM
5 Comments:
Your neighbor took the wrong approach: relative amount of increase over the prior year is not a basis for appeal. The fact that last year's (or the past decade's) assessments were all over the map says nothing about the fairness of this year's assessments.
The valid bases for appeal are a) your house isn't actually worth its assessed value or b) your house is assessed materially higher than comparable properties. The latter is called an "equalization" challenge, and can apply even if your home is assessed at its actual value.
Example: You are assessed at $300K (which is what you paid last year for your house). Normally, that would be a valid assessment -- UNLESS you have neighbors in similar houses (a frequent circumstance on the Hill with our rowhouses) who were assessed for $200K.
A variation: you have the smallest house on the block, but are assessed at or above the amount of the assessments for bigger houses on larger nearby lots. You have a solid basis for appeal even if your house is really worth your assessment, because -- here again -- you are being treated unfairly & effectively taxed at a higher rate than your neighbors.
And yes, I've filed challenges more than once on equalization grounds & prevailed, including the time I took a 2d-level appeal to BRPAA.
This is good information, Mark. I believe my neighbor used other factors in addition to the noise, but it sounds like you're also saying that noise doesn't matter to the city assessors. Should she have ignored the noise issue altogether?
We all should be better informed about the assessment process.
Actually, I think a chronic nuisance noise condition ought to be a factor taken into consideration. (You can see, however, why BRPAA might require strong evidence that the condition is persistent and cannot be abated. Otherwise, people could game the system by having accomplices create temporary noise problems.) No, I was just pointing out the uselessness of arguing "my percentage increase over last year is too big compared to my neighbor's." That claim will never get you anywhere.
FYI, Stanton Park Neighborhood Association devoted one of its monthly meetings last year to a discussion of real property assessments and the appeal process. Tom Branham (who is or was the Chief Assessor in DC) spoke, as did two residents -- including yours truly -- who have filed successful appeals.
Wait Mark, didn't you just say in your first post that an appeal should be based on "equalization"? Now in your last post you say an arguement of "my percentage increase over last year is too big compared to my neighbor's" is useless? Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. FYI, the latter ["my percentage increase over last year is too big compared to my neighbor's"] works, I filed an appeal with this approach and my assessment was lowered.
Anonymous, go back and read what I wrote again. "My percentage increase was bigger than my neighbor's" is not an equalization challenge. An equalization challenge is based on the assessment *amount* as compared with the *amount* of the assessment for similar nearby properties.
Here's an easy example: for some reason, in past years your house was unreasonably assessed at the low value of $100K. (Don't laugh; the general ineptitude of OTR through the '80s and '90s produced a number of these, including one on my block.) Meanwhile, your neighbors have all been assessed at $250K for their identical rowhouses.
Suddenly, OTR realizes all your houses are worth $300K, and gives you all identical assessments in that amount. You just had a 200% increase; your neighbors, 20%. Do you have a valid equalization complaint? Absolutely not. Your house is fairly assessed in its own right (market value) and in comparison to neighbors' new assessment amounts.
Be careful not to confuse percentage of increase with the legitimate, related complaint that "my assessment is too high because isn't worth that much." You might get relief on appeal *if* you had a large percentage increase, but you shouldn't get one simply *because* you had a big jump.
Post a Comment
<< Home