wtf? Board of Revision (2629 Ashland Ave. Walnut Hills)

  2629 Ashland

wtf? is a series of posts dedicated to holding a spotlight on the mysterious and un-explainable decisions of the Hamilton County Board of Revision

Based on a tip from an astute reader, today we venture outside the city center to Ashland Avenue in Walnut Hills.  While analysis has previously focused on expensive commercial properties, it turns out the Board has also made puzzling decisions regarding modest residential properties as well.

The 9 room, 2,163 square foot house with two full baths at 2629 Ashland was valued at $52,180 during the last reappraisal in 2011.  Held by the same owner since 1990, in 2013 it was sold to a church-owned development company for $2,000 who sold it to a renter for the same amount they paid.  On August 15, 2013 a complaint was filed with the Board of Revision, asking for a reduction in value to the sale amount, which was granted   When I asked Susan Silver, chief of administration for the Hamilton County Auditor, for a recording of the hearing, she explained there had never been one.

“This matter was an “expedited hearing” meaning the complainant received a letter from the Board of Revision, after our staff appraiser reviewed the complaint and information available to him about the property, indicating the Auditor’s Real Estate Department agreed with the complainant that the subject property’s “sale price best represents the fair market value for the parcel and will recommend this to the Board of Revision on the hearing date.”  In “expedited” cases, the complainant need not come in unless he/she wishes to do so. . . .On the particular case/parcel you have asked about, the complainant does not seem to have appeared (based on the record) and no questions or concerns were raised.  The $2000 proposed value was approved by the Board.”

Is that fair to the next door neighbors at 2627 Ashland whose house is valued for $54,780, $7,370 of which is for the land (as opposed to a $500 land value on 2629 Ashland).  Or the owners of the condos in the old public school across the street that sold for $134,000 – $197,000?.

The problem that brought attention to the valuation issue is the current less-than-stellar owner.  On an otherwise quiet street of nice families, this house has become an eyesore with a lot of unexplained comings and goings in the middle of the night that appear to be drug-related.  When the Board of Revision reduced the property tax liability to almost nothing, they made sure this house was so ridiculously affordable that the one bad apple on the street will probably stay there forever, ruining the neighborhood for the hard working families who are paying their fair share of taxes.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “wtf? Board of Revision (2629 Ashland Ave. Walnut Hills)

  1. David Dawson

    If the two transactions were indeed private sales, not advertised to the public, these should not be considered “market value sales” and the county’s “market value” should not be based on such. The $2,000 valuation is grossly out of line with that of neighboring properties. This kind of action, as you noted, can really screw up a street/block. Good column. Now I’m wondering what we can do about this kind of situation?

    Reply
  2. executivedreamer Post author

    The neighbors can file their own complaint to get the value raised – if they are willing to go through the hearing process. OR we can lobby to clarify guidelines for BOR decisions in the future. OR we can put pressure on the Auditor’s appraisal team on specific properties 3 years from now when they do the next big reappraisal. What do you think of those ideas, Mr. Real Estate Pro David Dawson? You’re a pretty smart fellow.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s