JJxvi

The reasonable N/S fix is to connect and make Sage/Silber a major road (would bet money based on the fact they are on the exact boundary line that this was intended).  Wouldn't happen in a million years considering the homes between Memorial and the bayou.

Im not certain, but part of the 610 ROW is within Memorial Park, so I think that actually opposition to more lanes and more ROW came from people opposed to any loss of park.  I don't recall anything about the 59 interchange in particular.

The plan requires significant use of eminent domain in EaDo.  Something like 15+ full blocks that will need to be acquired.  I would be surprised if the land under the Pierce elevated isn't being thought of as a way to offset land acquisition costs.

This would likely be a different and more complicated problem if the Pierce elevated actually connected any destinations, since TxDOT would need to figure out a more complicated design likely still utilizing the current 45 ROW to maintain access, but since the Pierce elevated is basically just a through way for the 45 mainlanes it really doesn't matter if those lanes exist in any particular ROW.   As far as I can tell the only destination impact is for northbound Gulf Fwy traffic that intends to get to Allen Pkwy and Memorial Dr, but that doesn't seem like it'd be a particularly large affected group.

I doubt that removing the Pierce is actually the driving goal here, driven by "yuppies"

IMO this is driven by practicality of ROW acquisition. The Pierce elevated ROW is basically maxed out, and is also hemmed in by some pretty expensive relatively developed real estate. The area east of 59 is relatively sparse and industrial by comparison plus land values are lower. There may be some minimal gains in traffic flow by having the freeways run side by side for longer periods, but I bet that acquiring 1 block worth of ROW along 59 and selling the half block width Pierce ROW is simply viewed to be a more realistic undertaking than acquiring another half block width of ROW along Pierce and Gray to add the necessary lanes to 45.

These blocks (and all the blocks east of 59 and west of St Emanuel) would seem to be under threat of eminent domain for freeway ROW in the new I45 upgrade plans.

I69/145 is trenched between St Emmanuel and Hamilton (No quite Hamilton, since the GB extends over the Hamilton ROW).

15 blocks or so between 59 and St Emmanuel will need to be ED'd in this plan including lots leased to the Astros, one of the Ballpark Lofts buildings, Little Woodrows, The Meridian, etc.

I think the big reason this route is chosen is that #1 EaDo blocks are less valuable than Downtown blocks, and the Pierce ROW is pretty much impossible to expand, so the most cost effective way to maximize the width of ROW and cost is  to buy the less developed Eado blocks and offset some of the cost by selling the Pierce ROW.

Its at least 6 city blocks worth of land.  (12 half blocks) so we are talking maybe $40 million dollars or more of property.

Demo it.

I guess there could be other ownership structures where there is some other entity that holds an interest in the land or the building separate from the unit owners, but I don't know if that exists.

I've lived in a mid-rise condo building for 8 years now and I'm still wondering about the cost/benefit aspect.  As far as property taxes, we're taxed on appraised value of the unit, so I think the effect of taxes on common areas is lumped into the HOA fees.  I don't worry about it, but,  it is of course useful to scrutinize the latter.  In all similar condo buildings I've seen, HOA fees are assessed at a constant amount per square foot.  I have one of the larger units in my building, so it's a bit painful when I think about how much I pay.  However, I do receive benefits in return that I appreciate, so I have to consider those on balance.  Our rate/sq-ft is a lot lower than many other places nearby, which offer services that I don't need.

 

I've looked online at places in downtown Austin and apparently a place smaller than mine would cost more than twice and would entail a larger HOA fee.  Doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

In any case, the lock-and-leave lifestyle is very comfortable.  I don't miss (too much) having a yard and I like not having to worry about my place while I'm away.  Plus, I live close to work and have a nice view, which is hard to come by in Houston.

Hmmmm...there should not be HOA fees going to pay taxes in a typical condo scenario.  A typical condominium what you are buying is your unit (walls in) and a share of all the common building and land elements.  You pay for your share of land and building in your purchase price and its included in the deed.  The HOA controls it, but if they are paying tax, and your unit is taxed based on the market price units are selling, then the appraisal district is double appraising some of the value of the property.  The market value of all the units added together should equal the market value of the property for tax, because those units all own a share of the rest of the property.

In my building, the unit that the Owner's Association occupies to manage the property does not even have its own account, which is as it should be, because that unit under control of the HOA is also owned by the rest of the unit owners and is factored into our purchase prices.

All else being equal except SF, a smaller lot will be worth less than a bigger lot, but worth more on a per square foot basis. Market data supports that. Smaller lots sell for higher values per square foot in real life. The evidence is on those sales maps.

On that page I gave you there is a good example right on the left hand edge of the page.  2 lots back to back on the corner of Lawrence.

The one facing 25th St is 6550 SF and sold in September 2013 at $45.80/SF ($300k).  The one directly behind it which had a warehouse on it and is being divided for townhomes facing 24th St was roughly six lots together at 39,300SF and sold in June 2013 for $22.77/SF (roughly $900k)

You can change that number (5359) to whatever map number you want to look at to view the phenomenon elsewhere (Shady Acres is probably good with lots of sales and sales of different size if you type in the number to the west of this page)

Larger lots have more value TOTAL. They do not have higher values per square foot, generally.  A house on two lots is not being valued as one lot with  house and one lot vacant.  It is valued as one oversized lot.

Go to the following address.  It shows HCADs land sales for last year with dates, size, and price/sf.  If you look for sales close to one another in both location and date with different sizes, you will see that in general smaller lots sell for more per square foot.

http://www.hcad.org/HearingEvidence/2014/SalesMAPS/p5359.pdf

Can anyone explain the logic (I know I'm stretching here) behind appraising land differently?  HCAD stipulates an "average" lot size for an area and assesses a $/sqft value.  If your lot is larger than the average, the amount in excess is typically assessed at 50%.  If your lot is smaller than the average they apply a multiplier that has no root in reality to increase the assessed value.  For example if you take two 25 ft lots at 3300 sqft each and build two shotgun houses on them the value of the land suddenly quadruples.  How is that fair and equitable?

Do you know why developers buy large lots and subdivide them to build denser housing on them?  Its because it maximizes the value of the land that they purchased.

Either the banks appraisal is wrong (which agreed with hcad when I bought the house) at 2611 sq ft, or hcad found 580 unknown sq ft

The appraiser for the bank likely just went to HCAD to get his SF, because they really don't do their job.

What did sellers agent claim the SF was in the MLS listing when you bought the house?

As for them finding out the sales price, if your home was listed in HAR/MLS the CAD will eventually know it.  The listing agent will have popped in the sales price when they closed their listing and it will be searchable to someone who has access to that data.

The owner on January 1 is who pays the tax.  You only paid the tax for them as a contractual agreement with the previous to owner to clear the title.  You got the benefit of their homestead for that one month, but you will not get capped based on their value for 2015.

As an example.

Lets say a house appraised by HCAD had a market value of $200,000 and that the owner's capped value was $175,000 on January 1, 2014.  Automatically that owner owes tax based on $175,000 which will be due by the end of January 2015.

You buy the house for $500,000 in November 2014.  You agree to pay the old owners taxes (so that you as the new owner can make sure they will be paid so you don't lose your house to the lein) in exchange for them paying you 11 months prorated portion at closing.  You pay taxes based on $175,000 in January 2015.

On January 1 you become qualified for a homestead exemption for tax year 2015 and apply.  You are a new homeowner of this property and have never had a homestead exemption on it before.  Your appraised value and market value will probably be $500,000 and will be equal to each other for sure.  The cap only applies if YOU had a homestead on the property last year. You did not, the other guy did.

Also, if you bought the house in November 2014, then the first time you will qualify for a residential homestead is January 1 2015 (it must be your principle residence on January 1 of the tax year you apply).  Your appraised value for 2015 will be equal to the market value in that case, because you did not have the exemption in 2014. (You will get the other benefits of the exemption in certain taxing jurisdictions on your tax bill though for 2015, just not the 10% appraisal cap).

To state it another way,  the new owner does not benefit from the old owner's homestead exemption.  In general, a new owner's appraised value will be equal to the total market value (which should be pretty close to what you actually paid) in the first full year that they own the property.  Then in the second full year they will be capped at 10% increases.

Your homestead cap is the lower of 1) last year's market value or 2) The sum of last years appraised value + 10% of last years appraised value + the market value of all new improvements to the property.

In general the new improvements must be something that adds to the market value of the property but does not include repairs or ordinary maintenance.  So the value attributable to the property of adding a pool, or value attributable to renovating the property, or value attributable to adding an addition is not subject the cap, but is instead added in on top of last years market+10%.

In general the "last reappraisal" is always last year.

What was the SF on the listing when you bought it.  Is the new SF actually wrong, or was the old number wrong?

Williams tower is a different scale and makes the rest of the buildings in the image look much smaller than they really are in that aerial photo.

http://swamplot.com/weingarten-wants-to-turn-streamline-moderne-sears-on-north-shepherd-into-prairie-style-shopping-complex/2015-02-18/

I wouldn't hold my breath on the city adding curbs and gutters in narrow problem streets in the Heights anytime soon, especially with real serious problem areas of the same nature in the West End/Rice Military/Cottage Grove/Washington Corridor