The bank's assessed value, is absolutely relevant to sale price. It is their collateral, and they are not going to write a mortage for a significant amount above what THEY believe it's value to be.

spoonchucker

The bank's assessed value, is absolutely relevant to sale price. It is their collateral, and they are not going to write a mortage for a significant amount above what THEY believe it's value to be.

 
That is all true Spoon, but the reality is that people have down payments (large ones when it's a second or third home) and the bank only cares about covering their loan which is usually not 100% of the value of the home or anywhere close to it.  Even for first time home buyers most people put down 20% minimum.  I know that's not the case all the time, but definitely the majority.
 
Anyone who has ever sold a home or property knows to not go by what the last bank or county assessment was.  You get a real idea of what your home might sell for by bringing in a local realtor and getting their viewpoint, which is based on other recent sales of similar sized homes in the same area.  Generally it's much higher than the banks conservative estimate, which doesn't take into account many relevant selling points.

Yes what you are saying is true Slayer and a cash offer is usually a better situation for the seller because there is a much smaller chance of the house not going to closing. We put 20% down , have excellent credit and the bank assessment came back ok, but we almost missed the closing deadline because the bank kept asking for more supporting documents. This is my second house and the banks really seem to have tightened up the lending standards this time. Some of the houses we lost to competing offers were the same offers as ours, but 100% cash offers with no mortgage. In relation to the argument at hand in this thread, here is a thought:
 
Let's say a landowner has about 0.25 miles of streamside property (owns both sides) and someone knocks on their door and says I would like to offer you in cash 3x the appraised value of this land so I can use it for my fishing club. The landowner says wow that is alot of money and I will take the offer. Well the neighbor who also has streamside property may see increased taxes because land right next door to him just sold for such a high price. You can try to appeal a tax increase, but you will have to find an appraiser who will disregard the sale of your neighbor's property, which is highly unlikely. My point in this entire discussion of taxes is that it is one of those things that would not be easily resolved if the PFBC stopped stocking steelhead.

Here's the thing. The PF&BC, as well as TU or other groups see the writing on the wall. Long standing stream access laws under attack. Rail to trails ( involving decades old rights of way ) being a very conentious issue, and often taken to litigation. And a growing public antaganism toward the use/abuse of eminent domain. It's pretty clear that there is little to no political will in Harrisburgh for any such legislation. So why pursue a fruitless effort, which would only serve to anger landowners and risk the loss of currently open property?
 
The current approach while perhaps not optimum, is the best available path at this time. The PF&BC needs to develope the resources to expand the easement program beyond the Erie watershed. It really HAS been effective, as pretty much all of Elk from the Green's down to the mouth is under easement, or public ownership. As well as a fair amount of upstream property. TU, and local sportsmen's clubs could help "sweeten" the PF&BC deal by commiting to annual or bi-annual cleanups in return for signing an easement. Maybe even offer modest streamside improvements IE: creating established angler pathways, or erecting fences to keep angler out off lawns/fields. The PF&BC could also in some cases of special regs on the easement IE: No fishing/access between dusk & dawn. Remember these easements are permanent. The landowner can not "Take it back" if issues arise. So anything that the PF&BC, clubs, and anglers in general can do to adress or ease a landowner's concerns might make the difference.
 
 

"It Doesnt matter what WE WOULD PAY for the land, It matters what it is valued at."
 
While I disagree with Slayer's assessment of it's level of "dumbness". There are more dumberer things posted every day, on almost every thread. It IS incorrect. Property, as with almost everything is AS valuable, or ONLY as valuable as someone is willing & able to pay for it.

I was talking for tax purpose also.   It doesnt matter what the house sells for, it will be taxed on its value, maybe I didnt post it clearly.    I purchased my house in 2003 for 235,000 , was valued at 250,000.  My taxes are based on the 250,000 not what I purchased it for.
 
I

Molson
I was talking for tax purpose also.   It doesnt matter what the house sells for, it will be taxed on its value, maybe I didnt post it clearly.    I purchased my house in 2003 for 235,000 , was valued at 250,000.  My taxes are based on the 250,000 not what I purchased it for.

 
Ok, I guess I misinterpreted what you were saying then.  I apologize.  
 
I also think the most logical solution to this whole thread was pointed out by Mossy Oak, when he said about classifying all privately posted stocked water as state nursery water so that no one can fish it.  That would solve the private lease/club issue of profiting off of a state funded resource, and would also provide steeper penalties for anyone who decides the trespassing fine of around $100 is worth it for some private access.

Molson
 
I see what you are saying now and your taxes should be based on your appraised value. However, this is not usually the case and the government leaves it up to the homeowner to resolve any assessment disputes on their own. In my case the county simply changed my tax assessment to the sale price because it was an under-assessed house that had not been sold in many years. In most cases the sale price is the minimum they are going to use for your assessed value and this will rise over the years. It works both ways, and while the assessment system is screwed up in PA here is an example of how it works:
 
Example 1: House is assessed for $225,000 and buyer pays $235,000 for house. The assessment may stay the same or go up to the purchase price if the county wants to raise it.
 
Example 2: House is assessed at $225,000 and buyer pays $105,000 for the house because this is what the bank appraisal comes back at (think of the recent real estate crisis). The buyer can appeal the assessment with the new appraisal and have it reduced to the sales price.
 
Example 3: House is assessed for $67,000 but sells for $225,000 because the seller has put in over $100,000 of renovations. The county will more than likely raise it to the sales price at first and factor in appreciation over the years and keep raising it.
 
I am not a big fan of this system, because rarely do the taxes go down and the counties usually figure they can just raise your taxes every year and make you fight it. If you have not sold your house in a long time, you may be lucky and they may not increase your assessment as quickly as the recent sales. However, if you pay $225,000 and similar houses or land is selling for $300,000+ a few years later you can expect a pretty quick increase in your taxes. Recent sales data is always relevant to your assessment and recent sales will also influence any new appraisal you are going to get.
 

So tell me,why would such an elitist take time out of his tremendously busy schedule to talk to an average joe pinner like me?If it wasn't him it would be someone else.

 
I think you answered that one for yourself.  He's a businessman, and if you were looking for a guide, if it wasn't him, it'd be somebody else.
 
Also...you're a pinner?  
 
Why am I not surprised.

"He's a businessman"
 
Exactly. A businessman who siezede an opportunitity to gain a competitive advantage. Ethical or not, it's the AMERICAN way. Which is generally espoused by the majority of this board in every OTHER situation.

.....and there's plenty going on with the land in question you boys probably don't know about.  Some might...

Killed it in Little Elk last week.

Ethical or not, it's the AMERICAN way.

 
That it's viewed as such is a big part of the problem.
 
Thankfully, it's not necessarily true.
 
The US has a long history of preserving public access to land and water. It basically invented the formal/legal concept of public lands (although in practice water and land been unofficially open for common use in previous and contemporary societies around the world; that's still the case in some places). The Hot Springs in Arkansas were protected in 1832, Yosemite was declared "for public use, resort, and recreation... inalienable for all time" by Lincoln, and Yellowstone was declared the first national park in the world a few years later in 1872. You also have the navigable rivers and streams, public beaches, national state and local parks, gamelands and preserves, and the high point achieved with the establishment of Montana's stream access law.
 
Contrast this to Britain and much of Europe, where the best waters were held in private, open only to the wealthy (and this is also the original source of "fly fishing elitism"). The idea was to get away from all of that. Unfortunately, we're now headed for something even worse. Public access is being curtailed by people buying up the best lands. Waters and parks and the like are being opened to exploitation, or worse, sold off or effectively leased to private companies. It's to the point where you have to pay to enter parks in some states.
 
This is all part of the same question: the relationship between human beings, money and the natural environment.

spoonchucker

"He's a businessman"

Exactly. A businessman who siezede an opportunitity to gain a competitive advantage. Ethical or not, it's the AMERICAN way. Which is generally espoused by the majority of this board in every OTHER situation.

 
Pretty much sums up the topic IMO.  Do I think what is going on is fair, no, but seems to fit the American way to me as well.  Good for him to make a buck in the USA, as long as he isn't breaking any laws doing so.  There are just as many of the companies that we work for, own, or especially blindly invest in doing similar things or worse.  What's really the difference getting a tax break or any sort of government funding that others aren't getting, because you did the research and found the opportunity, ect.?  If someone is willing to take $20k less per year, than what they would be making in a better economy, most companies aren't paying that extra $20k.  If they happen to pay an extra $5k, most workers in this economy are doing back flips of joy, although $15k underpaid.  If they see 1 person will do the work of 3, they are more than willing to keep from rehiring the other 2.  I find that practice twice as unethical of what these guys are doing, and is American business 101.  My investments, and most of yours, are taking off because of that practice.  I'm not about to give back any of my investment earnings or stuff my earnings in coffee cans, to bury in the yard.  Heck, my financial adviser might be investing in Beaver or Senyo as part of my portfolio, and I'd never know.  I have no doubt, he is investing in less ethical operations.  I doubt he is investing much differently than any of your advisers either.  
 
Do I blame any of you for fighting this, not at all.  I also do not think it is ethically right, but he is just playing the same game that we are all part of.  It just happens to hit an issue (market) that we enjoy.  If someone bought all of the property around my favorite fishing spot's entrances, and put up toll booths to travel their roads, I'd be just as irate as many of you stekheaders.  For me, I could care less about paying $5 every time that I stekhead.  What's $10-$20 per year more to the fishing budget?

It's funny how they can't explain it... The girls in our assessors office would drop their heads and pretend to be real busy when I'd walk through the door, lol. Don't let them BS you about needing an appraiser to attend the appeal with you either. Although it may be worth the cost to have one. They tried that with me, I called BS and showed up with a presentation, color copies and bound for every member of the appeals board. I was successful in getting a reduction but for this area and for what I have my assessment is still high...  
 
Good luck with your appeal...