|
|
 |
(Back
to Questions and Answers)
The
Greater Lewisville Association of Realtors, Inc.
conducted Local Candidate Interviews on March 17, 2008.
They asked the candidates to submit answers to the
following questions. Here are the questions and my
submitted answers:
QUESTION: Several cities
across Texas have undertaken excessively restrictive measures on rental
property in their communities in an effort to monitor landlords and generate
local fee driven revenues through rental property. Some of these actions are
registration of rental property and the inspection of rental property with
permitting and other subsequent fees associated with these measures. Would
you oppose such proposals to enact a rental registration or rental property
inspection fee?
ANSWER: The way the Statement and the Question are written, I
have to answer two ways. If the reason is to “generate local fee driven
revenues” then the answer is YES, I would oppose doing this to generate
revenues”.
However, I am aware that Farmers Branch has passed Ordinances 2903 and 2952
that may be considered part of this subject. In last year’s election
two-thirds of the voters approved such actions. On January 22, 2008, the
City Council passed Ordinance 2952 which will stop rentals of housing to
illegal aliens and will place the enforcement burden on the city and federal
government rather than landlords. The Ordinance states, “It is the
occupant’s responsibility to submit an occupancy license application to the
building inspector, pay a fee of $5 to the City, and obtain a residential
occupancy license. If there are multiple occupants seeking to occupy a
single rental unit, each occupant must obtain his or her own residential
occupancy license.” I would have to say that $5 per occupant application
does not make a revenue income.
The current status of implementation of Ordinance 2952 in
Farmers Branch is currently pending a court decision. There is much optimism
that it will pass without problems. I would be in favor of this and
therefore would not oppose such actions if they were needed in Lewisville. .
It would be a tool for the City to help enforce the laws of this Country and
help enforce one family dwelling ordinances, overcrowding in apartments,
schools, etc..
QUESTION: While
considering the relationship between local taxing jurisdictions (city,
county or school) and the Central Appraisal District. What role do you feel
the Chief Appraisal/ Central Appraisal District should be in budgeting
process?
ANSWER: I think that the Chief Appraisal/ Central Appraisal
District should NOT be in the City budgeting process. This is a decision of
the City Council working with the City Manager. Each level of government
does have some influence on the other levels by their actions and how lows
are enforced.
For example, the County influences the City and School district as the
County appraises the value of the property in Lewisville. The City Council
sets a City property tax rate to meet budgeting needs based on appraised
property value. As a homeowner, I have seen our appraised value rise
unrealistically and have had to go to the County to get it lowered to an
amount comparable to other similar homes sold in my neighborhood. The
Average resident does not have the ability to miss work and spend a day
waiting to object to the appraisal and therefore the appraised values get
paid. Because of this the City Council can lower the property tax and still
meet our budgeting needs. I would encourage the City Council to encourage
the County to not arbitrarily raise property values and have them more in
line with the actual sale of similar properties in the area.
And another example… The City has influence on the value of property, the
Schools, living conditions, and more by the way they create ordinances and
enforce laws. The actions of the city on revitalization and keeping
neighborhoods from deteriorating can truly increase and/or maintain property
values. The recent decision to limit the places where sexual offenders can
live like surrounding cities will keep Lewisville from having a higher ratio
of these offenders in the city and thus not inhibit people from moving here
QUESTION: Currently,
Texas has a 10% cap on the increase in Assessed Values for residential
homesteads. Several proposals in the Texas Legislature would artificially
cap property appraisals at 3% or 5% annually. The following is a two part
question: A). Do you support an artificial lowering the cap on appraisals?
Further, some of these proposals would allow local-option elections that
would allow for appraisal caps on a local level. B). Would you support
efforts to lower the appraisal cap at the local level?
A). ANSWER: Yes
B). ANSWER: Yes
From what I understand of the Texas Property Tax Code is that it provides
that the maximum increase in a homeowner's assessed value is 10% per year
times the number of years since the property has been appraised. Here in
Lewisville, it appears that homes are appraised annually since they keep
changing the values every year. I also understand that the 10% cap only
applies to residence homesteads. Since any cap is really artificial, the cap
will only serve to limit the abuse of raising the appraised value higher
than the actual value properties are bought and sold (the real cap). If
appraised values were actually more in line with the real cap, this topic
would not be such a big issue. I believe that most home owners are willing
to pay their fair share of property taxes that are needed to sustain the
local government. That is, appraised for a value that it will actually sell.
It is my opinion that the artificial cap should be at or below the rate of
inflation (cost of living rate). This will help people maintain their cost
of living and help them to keep affording their homes. Currently,
Lewisville’s City Property tax rate is slightly under the average for the
metroplex area which makes Lewisville a good place to live.
QUESTION: Currently,
local taxing jurisdictions have the ability to grant local property owners
an exemption for their homesteads of up to $15,000. The following is a two
part question: A). Do you favor the $15,000 local homestead exemption for
your taxing jurisdiction as a way of providing property tax relief? B). If
the legislature gave local taxing jurisdictions the option of increasing the
$15,000 local homestead exemption, would you support such an increase?
A). ANSWER: Yes
B). ANSWER: Yes
Tax relief to the citizens of Lewisville is a good thing but only if the
City budget can afford the increase. The Current exemption at $15,000 at the
combined rate of 2.32871% saves homeowners about $349 a year on taxes. The
local City tax portion of the combined rate is 0.45679% which is about
$68.52 per year. With a good economy and a good commercial and retail sales
tax base, Lewisville may be able to do this without raising the property
tax. This will apply only to homeowners that live in their home and will not
apply to all property in Lewisville. I think it would be better to adjust
the property tax rate at the local level so that all will benefit. But both
options should be considered if a break is going to be given.
QUESTION: Currently, the Texas
Constitution permits condemnation of land for public use. Before the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. New London, public use was understood to be
for parks, roads, and other infrastructure. In light of this recent ruling
allowing the taking of private property for economic development purposes,
the scope of public use needed to be redefined. SB 7, recently passed during
the second special session, attempts to protect private property from local
governmental entities taking private property through the power of eminent
domain for purposes of economic development. However, the bill is full of
exceptions. The following is a two part question: A). Do you support the
taking of private property through the powers of eminent domain for the
purpose of economic development? B). Do you support a local governments
taking of private property through powers of eminent domain and conveying
that condemned property to another private sector entity or owner?
A). ANSWER: No
B). ANSWER: No
It is my opinion that eminent domain should only be used for the necessity
of acquiring land for required roads and the amount paid to the owner of the
property should not be the less than the highest appraised value (land and
structures) over the preceding 5 years. I would also like the projected
value of the land and structures to be a consideration. For example, if 10
people buy an acre of land each and one acre is going to be taken by eminent
domain and thus raise the value of each of the surrounding acres, then the
person that is getting forced out should be compensated accordingly.
Though not directly related to Lewisville, eminent domain is being used for
the Texas Trans Corridor (TTC). Though this is considered a road way, I do
not believe in the project’s purpose.
I do not think that any level of government should
obtain the land forcefully through eminent domain to build a parking garage,
building, etc…. This land should be obtained through fair market
negotiations with the owner of the land. If an agreement for the sale
of the land cannot be reached, then the project will have to be abandoned.
The value of someone’s land is the price that it can be sold which is the
combination of the seller’s and buyer’s perceived value. The owner of the
land should determine what the land should be sold for – after all, they are
the ones that actually invested their money in buying the land in the first
place.
Assuming that a banking institution does not own a
property to foreclose on the owner and place the property back on the
market. If a property is condemned for the greater good and acquired by the
city, the land should be placed on the market and sold. Proceeds should be
used to pay operating expenses of this project and any overage returned to
the previous owner. I do not think the City should be acquiring property for
redistribution to another entity or owner.
QUESTION: As local
officials look for new ways to fund city and county services, other states
have developed proposals to enact new local taxes, including a proposal that
places a flat fee or percentage sales tax on all real estate transactions
(a.k.a., “real estate transfer tax”). Would you support a transfer tax on
real estate transactions of any dollar amount or percentage either locally
or on the state level?
ANSWER: No. I am not for new taxes even though I know that
there are some vehicles that can cost more than some homes and these
vehicles are taxed. Renting a hotel room has a tax. Everything seems to have
a tax. I would think that a transfer tax would inhibit people from buying a
home.
QUESTION: Recently, local
title companies and REALTORS have encountered a new form of real estate
transfer fee whereby developers or property owners place a deed restriction
on property which requires a transfer fee to be paid to a designated entity
or individual. The Texas Association of REALTORS was successful during the
80th Legislature in prohibiting these deed restrictions for private gain.
However, homeowner’s associations and non-profits entities were not
addressed. Would you support the Texas Association of REALTORS and your
area’s local REALTOR association in opposing a developer or non-profit’s
attempt at enacting such transfer fees established via a deed restriction?
ANSWER: Yes. I think a person’s property is just that – their
property. There should not be any deed restrictions beyond what the local
ordinances place on a home owner for construction type, occupancy, etc…
  |
|
|
