You’re a champion of the common man. Since you’re convicted, make sure D publishes your idea. Maybe you can put together a webcast of the vetting meeting (or whatever you call the get together when people discuss your story) so we can all learn something!

On to glass 5 in your honor…

That was exactly my point about the little guy. And we do understand the real world. It’s just a different real world.

Fred:

Have another glass of wine.

I know what your theory is and I’m not saying I disagree with you that valuations are not perfect. But you’re operating under the mistaken premise that because Hicks and other rich guys don’t pay enough, your idea is necessarily meaningful. You addressed nothing in my post other than your incorrect belief that lower-income neighborhoods (1) are not undervalued and (2) would not be a target for development. Are you familiar with the square mile or so immediately south of Bluffview and west of Greenway Parks? That’s been a target for at least 30 years, but nobody has been able to package the deal. Go about 1/2 a mile east or north from most points and the property values double.

House in your family for 3 generations? Sorry, you should have set a higher price. Rich neighbor who doesn’t like your shrubs? You’re out too. Rich ex-girlfriend’s dad wants revenge? Time to move. Sorry if it’s in the middle of your kids’ school year.

Then consider leasing issues, liens, contracts for sale, life estates…on and on.

They are overvalued on the tax rolls, so the little guy is paying more than their fair share….you uppercrusters will never understand the real world.

Sit down. Breathe. The theory is that the little guy is paying more than his fair share. If Hick’s house is under-appraised by $20,000,000, then that’s $500,000 in property taxes he’s stiffing the county and state. That equates to the property tax on 100 $200,000 houses. Throw in Cuban’s and all the other undervalued houses in Preston Hollow and the Park Cities (including mine), and you have a monumental shift in tax burden to the folks who can least afford it. I know that the lower-income houses are not that undervalued on the tax rolls, if at all. (I bought my nanny a house, remember?) If the aggregate property value of all the residential and commercial real estate in the State was properly assessed, then the tax rate on all property could be reduced without impacting overall tax receipts. Bottom line, the little guy would pay less tax. And no, nobody would be out trying to buy up a bunch of low-income housing.

Instead of Hicks having to worry about a handful of people who could afford his house, most people will have to worry about the 100,000 people who could afford theirs.

You will also displace thousands. Every lower-income neighborhood in a good location will be wiped out either by developers buying at the values, or by the residents’ inability to handle the tax burden placed on themselves through high values assigned out of fear that their property will be taken. That’s okay with me, but not a lot of people.

You guys are playing a trick on me, yes?

As we discussed, this is fascinating. You should write about it.

You’re actually getting the picture. If everyone put a price on his or her house equal to the price he or she would be willing (or forced) to sell it, then the tax base for the state would go up dramatically — allowing the state to lower the tax rates. Everyone would pay his or her true fair share. (As Eric notes, people like Tom Hicks are getting a steeply reduced-fare ride, because his house is radically undervalued on a percentage basis relative, probably, to your house.) It’s self-policing, as you note, and the state could get out of the appraisal business.