Church Street South Taxes Cut 20%

Wait till the lead painted building owners start asking for realistic appraisals based on the cost of abatement.

and the financial pressure increases due to stupidity

One small clarification. The article says that the taxes could drop further after Northland finishes demolishing the buildings. In fact, CGS § 12-64a requires the city to take the buildings off the tax rolls once they are demolished and the rubble is removed. (The provision does not affect the taxes on the land.) As the story notes, the order references this provision.

Yet another budget headache.

Northland Investment Corp is the worst.

It's Northland's fault the city taxed it too much? lol. Shame on Northland for seeking to pay its fair share vs. overpay.

1644, maybe but probably not to any significant degree. As you probably know, apartment buildings are typically valued on a net income basis rather than comparable sales or cost of original construction. The mere presence of lead paint or the potential for an abatement order does not affect net income. The owners of buildings that incur substantial costs as a result of complying with an order have a good case for an assessment reduction. But the number of units affected by such orders is a tiny fraction of the tens of thousands of rental units in town. And the city's ability to substantially expand its enforcement efforts is very limited. Hopefully, landlords will do a better job of routine maintenance in light of the coverage of the hazardous buildings. But I doubt many will incur the costs of remediation on their own.

I carry no brief for Northland, which has been a bad landlord. But the law (CGS § 12-64) requires, with limited exceptions that don't apply here, that property be assessed at its fair market value. A property's condition affects its value. The city erred, and has acknowledged its error, in assessing this property. The law provides perverse incentives. But it has been on the books for decades, if not centuries. I suspect it will not changed soon.

And this is, kids, why we need to move towards land value taxation. That piece of real estate is one of the most valuable parcels in Connecticut. As a vacant lot is taxed peanuts, giving zero incentive to Northland to get a project in place quickly. Tax the land, not the buildings. Land is scarce, buildings are cheap.

Valuation and tax paid are two different things. This article does not provide the factual basis for the conclusion that the taxpayer paid 20% less tax. In fact, the article does not examine how much tax was paid other than to say approximately $83,000 of tax that was paid in the past will be credited going forward.

This sentence is not factually supported by the reference: "Thanks to the order, the properties' cumulative values, and corresponding taxes, are 20.53 percent less than they were after the original 2016 assessment by the city." The Order addresses valuation only.

Because tax rates change - that is the amount per assessed value (which you do explain in the article) - you cannot conclude that Northland will see a 20% reduction in tax paid. While the valuation and corresponding assessment may decrease, the City may increase the mill rate so that there is no net change in tax paid.

Please correct the article or go get the evidence about the tax paid to support your assertions.

Noteworthy,

Northland has overseen a housing complex that has done lifelong damage to many of our youth. Now the list of people and organizations you defend includes pedophiles, rapists, and slumlords.

Egocrata, years ago, the legislature authorized New London to conduct a land value taxation pilot. I have no idea whether it was implemented and if so how it worked out.

More generally, the fact that the idea has been around well over a century and has been implemented in a very small number of jurisdictions suggests that it is not a panacea. Pittsburgh stopped using this approach in 2001 and nonetheless seems to be doing well relative other Rust Belt cities.

concerned_neighbor, you are correct going forward. But the order also dealt with Northland's past tax liability. The article is correct with regard to the 2016 and 2017 tax years.

Egocrata: The land is valued and taxed at its fair market value as land. PA 490 provides some exceptions to this practice, and advocates of historic preservation, such as me, would argue for more. Regardless, Northland would have cleared this land long ago and built a high-value development that would be generating a lot of tax revenue for New Haven had Colon and others not blocked it. Northland never wanted to operate CSS, it wanted to clear the land to build something market-rate, precisely because the "highest and best use" of the parcel is as transit oriented, mixed use development. New Haven's effort to preserve subsidized housing is the reason this parcel is not generating a lot of income for the city.