<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Property Tax Assessment Review Period Begins Today</title>
	<atom:link href="http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/</link>
	<description>by Mike Fotiou, Associate Broker with First Place Realty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:29:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1151</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jimmy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Not Mike F&quot;: 

A house could be a grow op full of biohazards and dead bodies and it still wouldn&#039;t show up in the assessed value. If you are buying a million dollar house by looking at the assessed value and deciding it&#039;s fair, you are making a giant mistake.

Last year when assessments were falsely high were you making the same argument that they were fair? I think I know the answer to that one already

http://www.bobtruman.com/blogs/bob_truman/archive/2009/12/08/the-biggest-loser.aspx]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Not Mike F&#8221;: </p>
<p>A house could be a grow op full of biohazards and dead bodies and it still wouldn&#8217;t show up in the assessed value. If you are buying a million dollar house by looking at the assessed value and deciding it&#8217;s fair, you are making a giant mistake.</p>
<p>Last year when assessments were falsely high were you making the same argument that they were fair? I think I know the answer to that one already</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bobtruman.com/blogs/bob_truman/archive/2009/12/08/the-biggest-loser.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.bobtruman.com/blogs/bob_truman/archive/2009/12/08/the-biggest-loser.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Fotiou</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1150</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Fotiou]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To prove my point further that the city assessed value isn&#039;t a science, or market value:  you would think properties that sold exactly on JULY 1, 2009 - the date of which the assessment was based on - would have a similar assessed value, right? Nope.

Silverado
Sold: $512,500
Assessed:  $480,500

Cranston
Sold: $484,000
Assessed:  $464,000

Taradale
Sold: $310,000
Assessed: $291,500

Palliser
Sold: $571,375
Assessed: $544,500

etc...

So I&#039;m not sure what sort of calculations the city employs to extrapolate prices from CREB stats to the other properties (and then back onto the properties that sold on July 1, 2009 themselves!)

What is interesting though is that the City assessments reflect Teranet&#039;s House Price Index statistics for July 2009 very closely which had Calgary at a -12.2% drop year-over-year.  So it seems the City&#039;s assessment is consistent with the way the market was on a whole back in July (a drop of 12-13% year-over-year) but not as to the actual prices on individual homes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To prove my point further that the city assessed value isn&#8217;t a science, or market value:  you would think properties that sold exactly on JULY 1, 2009 &#8211; the date of which the assessment was based on &#8211; would have a similar assessed value, right? Nope.</p>
<p>Silverado<br />
Sold: $512,500<br />
Assessed:  $480,500</p>
<p>Cranston<br />
Sold: $484,000<br />
Assessed:  $464,000</p>
<p>Taradale<br />
Sold: $310,000<br />
Assessed: $291,500</p>
<p>Palliser<br />
Sold: $571,375<br />
Assessed: $544,500</p>
<p>etc&#8230;</p>
<p>So I&#8217;m not sure what sort of calculations the city employs to extrapolate prices from CREB stats to the other properties (and then back onto the properties that sold on July 1, 2009 themselves!)</p>
<p>What is interesting though is that the City assessments reflect Teranet&#8217;s House Price Index statistics for July 2009 very closely which had Calgary at a -12.2% drop year-over-year.  So it seems the City&#8217;s assessment is consistent with the way the market was on a whole back in July (a drop of 12-13% year-over-year) but not as to the actual prices on individual homes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Fotiou</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1149</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Fotiou]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not MikeF, whether you disagree with my statement or not is immaterial as I&#039;ve backed it up with properties that sold this week for tens of thousands of dollars above AND below the assessed value.  Not to mention, the assessed value is always 6-18 months behind the current market.  Even Kevin, writer of &lt;a href=&quot;http://edmontonhousingbust.blogspot.com/2010/01/december-numbers-are-in.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;EdmontonHousingBust&lt;/a&gt; agrees:

&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;I never really understood why some put stock in those assessments... they really mean nothing as far as the market is concerned, it only represents your share of the cities tax burden.&quot;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Second, and this might blow your mind, but the City uses the statistics from &lt;strong&gt;CREB&lt;/strong&gt; to assess value.  If you thought a city official visits each of the half a million properties every year to do an actual appraisal and takes into account upgrades, condition &amp; quality, recent renovations, etc...well, then I can&#039;t help you. 

&quot;&lt;em&gt;No one in their right mind should pay more than a house is worth, and that’s city value&lt;/em&gt;&quot;

Then the market prices in 2008 compared to the 2007 assessment would&#039;ve seemed like an absolute steal!  It works both ways.

]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not MikeF, whether you disagree with my statement or not is immaterial as I&#8217;ve backed it up with properties that sold this week for tens of thousands of dollars above AND below the assessed value.  Not to mention, the assessed value is always 6-18 months behind the current market.  Even Kevin, writer of <a href="http://edmontonhousingbust.blogspot.com/2010/01/december-numbers-are-in.html" rel="nofollow">EdmontonHousingBust</a> agrees:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;I never really understood why some put stock in those assessments&#8230; they really mean nothing as far as the market is concerned, it only represents your share of the cities tax burden.&#8221;
</p></blockquote>
<p>Second, and this might blow your mind, but the City uses the statistics from <strong>CREB</strong> to assess value.  If you thought a city official visits each of the half a million properties every year to do an actual appraisal and takes into account upgrades, condition &amp; quality, recent renovations, etc&#8230;well, then I can&#8217;t help you. </p>
<p>&#8220;<em>No one in their right mind should pay more than a house is worth, and that’s city value</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>Then the market prices in 2008 compared to the 2007 assessment would&#8217;ve seemed like an absolute steal!  It works both ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike but not mike F</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1148</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike but not mike F]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:14:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A note about using the unbiased City Assessment pricing to price a property accurately:

For us, we put offers in no higher than city assessed value, even if the selling realtor has priced it above city value. If the realtor doesn&#039;t like the offer, we walk to the house for sale at or under city assessment.

No one in their right mind should pay more than a house is worth, and that&#039;s city value.

Mike]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A note about using the unbiased City Assessment pricing to price a property accurately:</p>
<p>For us, we put offers in no higher than city assessed value, even if the selling realtor has priced it above city value. If the realtor doesn&#8217;t like the offer, we walk to the house for sale at or under city assessment.</p>
<p>No one in their right mind should pay more than a house is worth, and that&#8217;s city value.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike but not mike F</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1147</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike but not mike F]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mike F, take a look at this batch of goodies then after 3 mintues of looking at the new assessments:

My old house in Scarboro I sold in 2008 was assessed last year at $768k, now it&#039;s $510k! But it&#039;s not just my old house, the house behind was $2.4m, now $1.41m, beside, $985k, now $743, across $1.1m, now $775k. And last year when the neighbourhood was filled with $1m+ assessed homes there are just 1 in 10 left. Our starter home in Millrise dropped from $365k to $293k.

That&#039;s a huge 25-33+% drop.

I haven&#039;t seen more than 1 in 20 homes actually up in value myself on the new assessment.

2009 buyers are NOT going to be happy.

As for &quot;city assessed values do not reflect up-to-date market conditions and can’t be relied on to set current market value&quot; I could&#039;t disagree more. We have used Assessed values as a primary pricing agent to determine a houses value. I trust a non-baised (city) source over a baised (CREB) source anyday. Plus CREB only goes by what sells, the city goes by EVERY HOUSE.

Mike]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike F, take a look at this batch of goodies then after 3 mintues of looking at the new assessments:</p>
<p>My old house in Scarboro I sold in 2008 was assessed last year at $768k, now it&#8217;s $510k! But it&#8217;s not just my old house, the house behind was $2.4m, now $1.41m, beside, $985k, now $743, across $1.1m, now $775k. And last year when the neighbourhood was filled with $1m+ assessed homes there are just 1 in 10 left. Our starter home in Millrise dropped from $365k to $293k.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a huge 25-33+% drop.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t seen more than 1 in 20 homes actually up in value myself on the new assessment.</p>
<p>2009 buyers are NOT going to be happy.</p>
<p>As for &#8220;city assessed values do not reflect up-to-date market conditions and can’t be relied on to set current market value&#8221; I could&#8217;t disagree more. We have used Assessed values as a primary pricing agent to determine a houses value. I trust a non-baised (city) source over a baised (CREB) source anyday. Plus CREB only goes by what sells, the city goes by EVERY HOUSE.</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jones</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1146</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:22:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good point Mike F, that makes the Canadian market more volatile to swings in interest rates depending on the percentage of US mortgages that are longer term.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good point Mike F, that makes the Canadian market more volatile to swings in interest rates depending on the percentage of US mortgages that are longer term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CM</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1145</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:53:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1145</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada To Surpass The United States in Residential Mortgage Debt in Q2-3, 2010, Marked-to-Market

http://americacanada.blogspot.com/2010/01/canada-to-surpass-united-states-in.html

&quot;Also note that US average incomes are higher than Canada&#039;s and they are taxed less. Furthermore, their mortgages are tax deductible. So the media was right. Canada is different. We&#039;ll be more indebted to housing than the US ever was.&quot;

-
&lt;strong&gt;Mike Fotiou says:  US homebuyers also get to keep the same interest rate throughout the entire amortization (fixed 30+ year rates) whereas here in Canada 1, 3, &amp; 5 year fixed rates (and sometimes 10) are the norm after which we need to renew at the current rates available.  It certainly would be easier to budget our future if it were the same here! &lt;/strong&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Canada To Surpass The United States in Residential Mortgage Debt in Q2-3, 2010, Marked-to-Market</p>
<p><a href="http://americacanada.blogspot.com/2010/01/canada-to-surpass-united-states-in.html" rel="nofollow">http://americacanada.blogspot.com/2010/01/canada-to-surpass-united-states-in.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Also note that US average incomes are higher than Canada&#8217;s and they are taxed less. Furthermore, their mortgages are tax deductible. So the media was right. Canada is different. We&#8217;ll be more indebted to housing than the US ever was.&#8221;</p>
<p>-<br />
<strong>Mike Fotiou says:  US homebuyers also get to keep the same interest rate throughout the entire amortization (fixed 30+ year rates) whereas here in Canada 1, 3, &amp; 5 year fixed rates (and sometimes 10) are the norm after which we need to renew at the current rates available.  It certainly would be easier to budget our future if it were the same here! </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Fotiou</title>
		<link>http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2010/01/04/property-tax-assessment-review-period-begins-today/#comment-1143</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Fotiou]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:02:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/?p=2660#comment-1143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wondering how the newly released assessments compare with prices of homes sold so far this month?

Ogden
Sold Price: $235,000
Assessed: $251,000


Dover
Sold Price: $238,000
Assessed:  $276,000

Collingwood:
Sold Price: $265,000
Assessed: $272,000

Capital Hill
Sold Price: $300,000
Assessed: $267,000

Whitehorn
Sold Price: $304,000
Assessed: $288,500

Coventry Hills
Sold Price: $325,000
Assessed:  $308,000

Taradale
Sold Price: $335,200
Assessed:  $310,000

Marlborough
Sold Price:  $336,500
Assessed:  $308,500

Shawnessy
Sold Price: $380,000
Assessed:  $364,000

Brentwood
Sold Price: $425,000
Assessed:  $422,500

Royal Oak
Sold Price: $622,500
Assessed:  $535,500

Signal Hill
Sold Price: $745,000
Assessed: $733,500

Altadore:
Sold Price: $830,000
Assessed:  $272,500
Reason: Infill

As you can see, city assessed values do not reflect up-to-date market conditions and can&#039;t be relied on to set current market value (Assessment is an estimate as of July 1, 2009)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wondering how the newly released assessments compare with prices of homes sold so far this month?</p>
<p>Ogden<br />
Sold Price: $235,000<br />
Assessed: $251,000</p>
<p>Dover<br />
Sold Price: $238,000<br />
Assessed:  $276,000</p>
<p>Collingwood:<br />
Sold Price: $265,000<br />
Assessed: $272,000</p>
<p>Capital Hill<br />
Sold Price: $300,000<br />
Assessed: $267,000</p>
<p>Whitehorn<br />
Sold Price: $304,000<br />
Assessed: $288,500</p>
<p>Coventry Hills<br />
Sold Price: $325,000<br />
Assessed:  $308,000</p>
<p>Taradale<br />
Sold Price: $335,200<br />
Assessed:  $310,000</p>
<p>Marlborough<br />
Sold Price:  $336,500<br />
Assessed:  $308,500</p>
<p>Shawnessy<br />
Sold Price: $380,000<br />
Assessed:  $364,000</p>
<p>Brentwood<br />
Sold Price: $425,000<br />
Assessed:  $422,500</p>
<p>Royal Oak<br />
Sold Price: $622,500<br />
Assessed:  $535,500</p>
<p>Signal Hill<br />
Sold Price: $745,000<br />
Assessed: $733,500</p>
<p>Altadore:<br />
Sold Price: $830,000<br />
Assessed:  $272,500<br />
Reason: Infill</p>
<p>As you can see, city assessed values do not reflect up-to-date market conditions and can&#8217;t be relied on to set current market value (Assessment is an estimate as of July 1, 2009)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

