Reassessment and the egregious Condominium Law

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Town of Lancaster is considering conducting a property reassessment (reval) program in the near future. The goal is to make sure the new assessments match what properties would sell for in the open market so owners are paying their fair share of the tax levy.

The only way to combat growing inequity is through a reassessment, which is recommended every three to four years. Lancaster has not had a reassessment since 2010.

According to assessors reassessments do not generate more tax dollars. Only an elected Town Board raising the tax levy can do that. Well, that’s mostly true except for property owners whose assessments increase and they will now pay more in taxes.

Sound fair? I can’t think of another or fairer way for towns to raise revenue than taxes based on full market value. However, the fairness leaves the room when we again consider the state’s egregious 339-y Condominium Law concept bastardized by developers and builders at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers. Today’s Buffalo News’s ‘Another Voice’ opinion post clearly states the unfairness of this law:

http://buffalonews.com/2018/05/15/another-voice-8/

The state law governing condominium developments was intended to address the need for affordable (vertical) housing primarily in downstate urban areas. Instead the device has been used by developers in suburban communities to provide well-to-do buyers with tax breaks in exchange for market (or generally above-market) rate housing at the expense of municipalities and the majority of taxpayers.

Despite municipalities submitting memorandum correspondences to Albany voicing objection to the tax breaks, little lip service is provided thereafter and municipalities grant the site plan rezones for the condominium subdivisions to flourish – throwing their collective hands in the air while lamenting that it is a state law and they are hand-tied. We hear about the influence of the Association of Towns, where the beef?

What is especially onerous about this law and its tax break percentage is that the tax reduction often exceeds the association fee that the property owner pays – sometimes two to three times over the cost of an association fee, depending on property market value.

Unfortunately, the private property owner unable to purchase a patio or townhome at $250,000 or higher will have to continue subsidizing the more affluent who are able to buy into a good thing as nothing will change – the developers will see to that.

[WNYresident]

Why can't the town board just stop the condominium law?

The State can say crap if the town board says "We don't want the condo law to apply to the town"

If they object call Cuomo and say.. We have laws about illegal immigration. When you start to fully follow those laws we'll think about this law.

[grump]

Towns can’t stop condominiums through rezoning because a condominium is a form of ownership and ownership can’t be regulated through zoning. Towns can adopt homestead taxation under the state’s Real Property Tax Law and this eliminates the differential treatment of condos. But it’s a complicated law that hurts small businesses by placing more tax burden on them and basically requires the town to maintain 2 sets of books. This is not just a “town” matter; the law applies to all real property, city, town or village. A higher assessment may or may not lead to a higher tax bill. If all assessments go up in the same proportion then the rate will fall for everyone and the tax bill should stay roughly the same. If assessments increase at different rates then some may pay more in tax. And the condo law applies to all condos, not just those purchased by the “well to do”. One might want to search the archives of Amherst town board meetings for a meeting when the hapless Satish Mohan proclaimed that the condo law was only for the benefit of the “rich” and he was going to end it. The next meeting was filled with dozens of condo owners who were far from rich and living on fixed incomes for whom a change in law would be devastating. The fact is that the real property tax law is full of provisions meant to help this or that group, charities, senior citizens, veterans. Each of these might have a compelling claim for tax shifting but the effect is to make some bear a greater tax burden. Just another example of tax policy being a blunt and unwieldy tool for doing social policy. Last I looked fewer that 50 of the 900+ towns in NYS had adopted homestead taxation.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The news report I posted, and which references Amherst, had nothing to say about condos being owned only by the ‘rich’ and does not fit the Town of Lancaster. The focal point of my post paralleled the following paragraph in the report:

Not only do condominium patio home developments pay less than their fair share of taxes, they also create unfair competition in the housing market against homes of equal size that pay full taxes.

Where the development property is correctly zoned MFR-3 the town has no site plan say in property rights. Where the town grants a rezone is another matter. The Town of Lancaster Planning Board (PB) recently recommended to the Lancaster Town Board that the application of Eastport Commerce to rezone LI property to MFR-3 for a residential property development that would include patio home construction be denied. At the upcoming May 21, 2018 town board meeting there will be a public hearing on the matter – as is the norm.

The town board by resolution will then approve or deny the application. There was not one PB member who favored this rezone and gave myriad and substantive reasons why. If there were reason(s) for pursuing legal challenge the applicant has not chosen that path.

In short, the town has the authority to deny rezone for almost any reason. They rarely chose to do so when patio or townhouse applications come before the board.

Municipalities double-speak when they claim they would like to remove the law for anything less than high-rise buildings but that their hands are tied.

There is no compelling reason here for tax shifting to make some bear a greater tax burden. Money talks, bull**** walks! It’s a developer scam! And IMHO, with patio homes selling for $275,000 and up in today's market, many Lancaster residents unfortunately don't have the funds to buy into that tax break con.

The scam should stop. Those who already bought more house knowing they would be receiving tax breaks should be grandfathered - only so long as they retain possession of the dwelling. Many would be devastated otherwise. Unfortunately nothing will change as municipalities are too heavily invested in the system and the Builders Association has much political juice.

[depewpaul]

The link below is how Cheektowaga dealt with the problem of Condo Status. They passed a new law to banning them from the Town, problem solved.

http://cheektowagatownny.iqm2.com/Ci...ms=Condominium

[grump]

The link below is how Cheektowaga dealt with the problem of Condo Status. They passed a new law to banning them from the Town, problem solved.

http://cheektowagatownny.iqm2.com/Ci...ms=Condominium

It will be interesting to see if the law withstands legal challenge. If so then the town can outlaw the sale of property to anyone just based on the form of ownership. I’m no real estate lawyer but my guess is that’s a rather novel legal concept.

[grump]

The link below is how Cheektowaga dealt with the problem of Condo Status. They passed a new law to banning them from the Town, problem solved.

http://cheektowagatownny.iqm2.com/Ci...ms=Condominium

Shame on me. When you said Cheektowaga outlawed condominiums I assumed that’s what the law actually does but it does no such thing. It prevents existing subdevelopments from “going condo” to take advantage of the assessment provisions. The state specifically allows the adoption of these local laws. The Cheektowaga law does not prevent the development of new condos in town.

[grump]

The news report I posted, and which references Amherst, had nothing to say about condos being owned only by the ‘rich’ and does not fit the Town of Lancaster. The focal point of my post paralleled the following paragraph in the report:

Not only do condominium patio home developments pay less than their fair share of taxes, they also create unfair competition in the housing market against homes of equal size that pay full taxes.

Where the development property is correctly zoned MFR-3 the town has no site plan say in property rights. Where the town grants a rezone is another matter. The Town of Lancaster Planning Board (PB) recently recommended to the Lancaster Town Board that the application of Eastport Commerce to rezone LI property to MFR-3 for a residential property development that would include patio home construction be denied. At the upcoming May 21, 2018 town board meeting there will be a public hearing on the matter – as is the norm.

The town board by resolution will then approve or deny the application. There was not one PB member who favored this rezone and gave myriad and substantive reasons why. If there were reason(s) for pursuing legal challenge the applicant has not chosen that path.

In short, the town has the authority to deny rezone for almost any reason. They rarely chose to do so when patio or townhouse applications come before the board.

Municipalities double-speak when they claim they would like to remove the law for anything less than high-rise buildings but that their hands are tied.

There is no compelling reason here for tax shifting to make some bear a greater tax burden. Money talks, bull**** walks! It’s a developer scam! And IMHO, with patio homes selling for $275,000 and up in today's market, many Lancaster residents unfortunately don't have the funds to buy into that tax break con.

The scam should stop. Those who already bought more house knowing they would be receiving tax breaks should be grandfathered - only so long as they retain possession of the dwelling. Many would be devastated otherwise. Unfortunately nothing will change as municipalities are too heavily invested in the system and the Builders Association has much political juice.

You didn’t say that condos are only for the rich just that only the affluent can afford expensive ones, kinda like the affluent being able to afford expensive stuff generally, I guess. I don’t know where you get the notion that a town has no say in site plan approval if a property is properly zoned but that’s simply wrong. You’re right that a rezoning decision rests with the town board. Therefore it would be a waste of $$$ for a developer to legally challenge a planning board recommendation because the real power is with the town board. If no one in Lancaster can afford them then that means they’ll be sold to people moving to town which increases the tax base. And if no one can afford $275k for a condo then who in hell are buying these other noncondo high end properties that are being discriminated against.