Kenmore Avenue at Niagara Falls Boulevard (Amherst, NY).

[grump]

Like it or not property is assessed based on value at its current use. It's not supposed to be assessed based on a speculative "value" for some other use, even if that use is allowed by the current zoning of the property. Otherwise the town could assess your house for 5 times its value because you could build a 5 times more valuable house on the lot if you wanted to. As for the other properties you mentioned maybe they're over assessed.

[Mike M]

Like it or not property is assessed based on value at its current use. It's not supposed to be assessed based on a speculative "value" for some other use, even if that use is allowed by the current zoning of the property. Otherwise the town could assess your house for 5 times its value because you could build a 5 times more valuable house on the lot if you wanted to. As for the other properties you mentioned maybe they're over assessed.

That's right. My pont exactly. And, remember, "value" is what someone will (or is likely to) pay. In most/many cases, the most practical means for that determination is to draw from comparable actual sales. Admittedly, a comparable for 159 NFB is tough to come by. Sooooo, I'd understand that some alternate methodolgy would need to be employed. No problem. The Assessor (and one of her staff) could only tell me that a consultant came up with the assessment "somehow". When asked for more clarification, they both acknowkledged that they would have no way of knowing what process was utilized... or from where the number came.

So, yeah, it should approximate the "value". Agreed. My contention is that $15k is not a defendable assessment.

As always, thanks for helping me to understand.

To throw further fuel (no pun intended) on this eyesore, I'm beginning to believe that the concrete border that has been placed upon the property constututes a fence. And, I am not convinced that it meets town code. We shall see, I guess.

And, one last element to toss in here... As I snoop around at other properties owned by United Refining (or affiliates), I begin to see a pattern of unusually low assessments. Many of those have direct comparables. It wouldn't be a surprise if there is some strategy involved. It also wouldn't be a surprise if the various assessors did not compare notes. [Again, the most disturbing part of this is that the TOA Assessor claims that they do not know how the $15k was developed.]

[grump]

New York recognizes different methods of computing assessments. Comparable sales is but one. Actually your only proof that the assessment is wrong is that you think it's wrong. And I thought everyone knew that assessments across municipal boundaries are rarely comparable. My guess is that the strategy involved is that United Refineries is successful at challenging assessments. And you seem to have an obsessive concern over the whether the concrete barriers are a "fence". How does a fence affect the assessment? And if it doesn't meet the town code as a fence what will you do then? I suggest a hunger strike in front of the lot. That will at least get you on tv. And how do you know that $15000 is unreasonable based on its current use as an empty lot?

[FisherRd]

Mike M,
In an earlier post you mentioned that you located your "files" on two of the properties you referenced. I'm probably out of the loop on this, but why do you have files? If I'm prying then I apologize.
I tend to agree that 15k seems low.
The fence thing is interesting as well, although I wonder if the fact it has those gaps between barriers eliminates it from "fence" consideration.

I don't know if you have an angle/axe to grind, and I don't much care. I'm interested in seeing how this all turns out.

[Mike M]

New York recognizes different methods of computing assessments. Comparable sales is but one. Actually your only proof that the assessment is wrong is that you think it's wrong. And I thought everyone knew that assessments across municipal boundaries are rarely comparable. My guess is that the strategy involved is that United Refineries is successful at challenging assessments. And you seem to have an obsessive concern over the whether the concrete barriers are a "fence". How does a fence affect the assessment? And if it doesn't meet the town code as a fence what will you do then? I suggest a hunger strike in front of the lot. That will at least get you on tv. And how do you know that $15000 is unreasonable based on its current use as an empty lot?

No. Wait. Just to be clear, I don't have any proof (at the moment, at least) that the assessment is incorrect. Right now, it is merely an educated and logically sound speculation based on some admittedly inconclusive information. If I said or impled anything different, my apologies.

The barriers (fence?) would have little - if any - affect on the assement as far as I can tell. Different angle altogether. I'll cross that bridge if/when I need to.

But, I'm interested in your comments about the value based on current "use" as an empty lot. I'm not certain that I understand exactly what you mean. There is no "physical" use of the property, right? So the only so-called "use" would be legal/financial(?). Is that what you are getting at? Can you run through the 'current use value' method so that I can better understand? Thanks!

[Mike M]

Mike M,
In an earlier post you mentioned that you located your "files" on two of the properties you referenced. I'm probably out of the loop on this, but why do you have files? If I'm prying then I apologize.
I tend to agree that 15k seems low.
The fence thing is interesting as well, although I wonder if the fact it has those gaps between barriers eliminates it from "fence" consideration.

I don't know if you have an angle/axe to grind, and I don't much care. I'm interested in seeing how this all turns out.

Meh. Not prying. I was quite (<- understatement!) involved in concerns about and actions upon several Eggertsville properties a number of years ago. Letters, Town Board, Housing Court, Eggertsville Community Organization, Zoning Board of Appeals, etc, etc. The whole shootin' match. A LOT. Predominately successful. And, as I've stated, there are times when I'm not convinced that "Nothing can be done about situations like this." This happens to be one of those times.

I dunno yet about the blocks = fence. I welcome any thoughts about that... please! Maybe start with guidance about "what is a fence"... I have not found such a definition in the Town Code.

I have no "angle" or "axe to grind." My involvement stems from my awareness that lotsa people believe that the state of the property is not a postive for the area. I agree with that thinking. Possibly, I can be part of a solution (which I recognize as be multi-faceted, complex, and prolly an uphill battle).

[grump]

No. Wait. Just to be clear, I don't have any proof (at the moment, at least) that the assessment is incorrect. Right now, it is merely an educated and logically sound speculation based on some admittedly inconclusive information. If I said or impled anything different, my apologies.

The barriers (fence?) would have little - if any - affect on the assement as far as I can tell. Different angle altogether. I'll cross that bridge if/when I need to.

But, I'm interested in your comments about the value based on current "use" as an empty lot. I'm not certain that I understand exactly what you mean. There is no "physical" use of the property, right? So the only so-called "use" would be legal/financial(?). Is that what you are getting at? Can you run through the 'current use value' method so that I can better understand? Thanks!

Educated based on what and logically sound based on what other than your own "education" and "logic"? There is a use of the property...its used as an empty lot! As for running through the current use value...no I won't. Do it yourself. As for your notion that the concrete blocks are a "fence" since the town code doesn't define a fence I hope you have some scratch you'll have to drop on the lawsuit to prove your point. And your suggestion that assessors should be "comparing notes" rather than reaching independent evaluations sounds like collusion to me...but what do I know.

[Mike M]

Educated based on what and logically sound based on what other than your own "education" and "logic"? There is a use of the property...its used as an empty lot! As for running through the current use value...no I won't. Do it yourself. As for your notion that the concrete blocks are a "fence" since the town code doesn't define a fence I hope you have some scratch you'll have to drop on the lawsuit to prove your point. And your suggestion that assessors should be "comparing notes" rather than reaching independent evaluations sounds like collusion to me...but what do I know.

No problem. I appreciate your thoughts and suggestion(s). That's for what I was looking. I agree that the lot is used as "empty". It's a relief that you agree with me.

And, hahah, good one, no I would never recommend that assessors collude. Yikes, no!

Everyone has their own opinion of education & logic. I would not question yours, 'cuz it is what it is and I believe that it has value. I appreciate the compliment about mine.

[speaker]

[QUOTE=Mike M;1551385]Wow! Thanks for the compliment! But I'm not sure that I'm any "expert". However, I did try to offer my information/thoughts to the TOA Assessor. She was entirely disinterested and dismissive.



This is very valuable property. Although undeveloped, it did have a gas station and the a Red Apple Store there. I don't know why the owner is sitting on it, but I do know the concrete blocks were put there to prevent it from becoming a free parking lot.
But it is quite valuable just for its potential and should never be assessed for anything like $15,000. And the owner is paying taxes on that assessment. If and when he sells it, the sale price will be quite hefty. It is an eyesore whereas most of the property owners surrounding it have tried to improve theirs.

[Linda_D]

This is very valuable property. Although undeveloped, it did have a gas station and the a Red Apple Store there. I don't know why the owner is sitting on it, but I do know the concrete blocks were put there to prevent it from becoming a free parking lot.
But it is quite valuable just for its potential and should never be assessed for anything like $15,000. And the owner is paying taxes on that assessment. If and when he sells it, the sale price will be quite hefty. It is an eyesore whereas most of the property owners surrounding it have tried to improve theirs.

I disagree.

This lot is < 7500 square feet (probably 50 x 150 or 75 x 100) which may be too small for many business uses. Most zoning ordinances have limits on the amount of surface area that can be covered by the actual building and by non-permeable surface (ie, parking lots/walk ways). Furthermore, most suburban towns and villages have requirements for so many parking spaces, including handicapped spaces, per so many square feet of building as well as requirements for buffers and entrances and exits, and it might require exits on both streets. Then there's set backs (ie, distance from the lot line) ... front, back, and sides. Being on a corner, this one likely has two "front" set back requirements.

My guess is this little lot is simply to small to be buildable under today's standards, although there was a building on it that likely predated any zoning at all, and especially today's more stringent building/zoning rules. If that little building was still there, it might have been able to be rehabbed into a new use despite not meeting current codes, but since there was no business on the site for so long, any "grandfathering" of the site except for the building itself would probably have expired years ago.

Finally, since this was a gas station site, the owner may be reluctant to put it on the market because of concerns about underground fuel tanks and the responsibility to clean up any contamination caused by the tanks. They may not be leaking now, but they might begin leaking during the removal process, and the owner would be responsible for the clean up. If this is a large corporation, then it might just be cheaper for them to pay taxes on the site than chance a problem with the tanks.

[grump]

Linda, I think they pulled the tanks out some time back. The rest of your points are well made. And while some may not like or accept it assessments are based on current use, ie an empty lot. Not on some prospective use that might be developed. Otherwise all our assessments could be radically increased tomorrow without recourse.

[WNYresident]

Linda, I think they pulled the tanks out some time back. The rest of your points are well made. And while some may not like or accept it assessments are based on current use, ie an empty lot. Not on some prospective use that might be developed. Otherwise all our assessments could be radically increased tomorrow without recourse.

That is how assessments work now. Your "new" assessment is based on what they think you house could be worth compared to other sales. If property in that area is selling for X amount that may raise your assessment up.

[grump]

Right, so what are the comparable sales for small empty lots with a host of zoning problems and maybe environmental issues. And when they compare your property they compare to actual sales of real properties, not to imaginary values of properties that might be developed on a lot if you wanted to raze the existing structure and build one 5x more valuable. To the extent there are inequities that's what the appeal process is for. So you actually have to get off your ass and do something.

[speaker]

That is fascinating info, Linda. You're right about the leakage of toxic fuel. Our little nursery was shut down because of benzine leaked by the one time Amoco station there.
Actually, the department pf transportation took, by eminent domain, some of all our properties. Wanted the owner to pay for the excavation and still take a big part of his property. So he just is letting them have the whole thing and moving elsewhere. We'll miss him and the street will not be as pretty, not that it ever was. The high end car lot, once a Texaco station, is losing a whole line of cars due to this move.
This, of course, should have all been done decades ago, but due to the many owners of Kenmore Ave could never get it together.That little spot on that corner could be made into something attractive. I still say it's valuable property, but the owner might be hamstrung.
Amherst has seemed disinterested for many years, in that area. Should have had a right turn only sign painted on the street, but that won't be needed with the widening. The Town of Tonawanda is equally guilty of neglect of this area. I predict a lot of commercial activity growing from University plaza.
You always have the greatest and most accurate information, Linda.

[WNYresident]

Right, so what are the comparable sales for small empty lots with a host of zoning problems and maybe environmental issues. And when they compare your property they compare to actual sales of real properties, not to imaginary values of properties that might be developed on a lot if you wanted to raze the existing structure and build one 5x more valuable. To the extent there are inequities that's what the appeal process is for. So you actually have to get off your ass and do something.

I don't know. What have smaller lots in that area been selling for? Those numbers are not "imaginary".