Dallas Metropolis

Thwarted in Austin, Rep. Eric Johnson asks Dallas mayor to soften blow of gentrification

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-l ... rification

Wednesday morning, the Democrat from Dallas sent Mayor Mike Rawlings a missive in which he calls for a gentrification task force at City Hall and asks for the city to consider a policy that would require studying "housing insecure" areas before new construction permits are allowed. Johnson also wants the city to look into creating a relocation policy before allowing new construction that could force out low-income residents.

This could be very good or very bad....

I am sure the intentions are good but it could slow down development, create more red tape which is already a problem in Dallas.

This is bad. New construction should always be allowed.. if the need is for affordable housing implement practices that give Developers incentives to include that type of housing in the new development.

This would be a disaster and would halt the urban growth of Dallas in its tracks. The inner part of Dallas could continue to grow in density for decades and still not make a dent in all of this single family occupied land.

The last thing we need is committee's and additional approval processes. What would truly help is proactive zoning in these areas that define what is allowed and allows investors/developers to know what they are getting into BEFOREHAND.

Too many of these 'poor neighborhoods' are of such low density that they are under-served (and will always be under-served) by transit options which force residents to have one or more private vehicles per household, thus worsening their situation.

Zoning should encourage low income unit availability around transit hubs and in return reduce parking and other requirements for developers.

On a somewhat related note... Assessors need to be on their game to ensure that the city is getting the tax dollars that it deserves from these areas as they change, to ensure the quality of the city increases with the cost of living. I have routinely seen homes selling for 30% over their assessed value. That's just not right...

muncien wrote:On a somewhat related note... Assessors need to be on their game to ensure that the city is getting the tax dollars that it deserves from these areas as they change, to ensure the quality of the city increases with the cost of living. I have routinely seen homes selling for 30% over their assessed value. That's just not right...

What's not right is assessors letting people like this guy get away with a $79,000 valuation when he's asking $700,000 in a neighborhood where homes are selling for $200-300,0000: http://oakcliff.advocatemag.com/2017/06 ... go-695000/

Sometimes I wonder if certain greedy property owners even help slow down gentrification. This guy could easily sell that gas station at a fair price and someone else can convert it to a cool burger joint like Pints & Quarts, which attracts even more people looking into buying here. In another case, I met a homeowner in the same neighborhood who had considered buying the house next door so he could tear it down and sit on the lot. In his mind, he was just making a sound investment but was completely clueless about the damaging effects of tearing down a midcentury house in a great neighborhood.

All this to say that something should be done to prevent mass evictions of working-class renters but we also need to look at fairly taxing Joe X who owns two or three houses or businesses, making terrible decisions that keep the neighborhood from evolving.

lakewoodhobo wrote: All this to say that something should be done to prevent mass evictions of working-class renters but we also need to look at fairly taxing Joe X who owns two or three houses or businesses, making terrible decisions that keep the neighborhood from evolving.

That's part of the problem.

Here's the other part of problem.

You have areas like Lakewood, Lake Highlands, Preston Hollow etc. Who ALSO refuse to evolve.

Last year, I recall Council woman Gates saying she doesn't want MF replacing SF units in her district.

So if no one wants to Evolve; Guess where the Middle Class is going to go? West Dallas..

That's the problem with Dallas residents (Mainly Neighborhood Assoc. Comprised of older ppl) they're reluctant to welcome Density in areas that are "Developed".

We are barely starting to see some of these "Developed" areas grow. However, if the city wants to address housing , then ALL parts of the city have to play fair.

These neighborhoods who want to keep their slice of suburbia either need to Densify or have their taxes increased even further.

You can't​ expect housing to be addressed properly if at one part of the city you have 8,000 ppl living a sq mile. But have the other part city, 12 min away, at 3,000 simply because of affluent neighborhood associations.

The process of challenging property tax is simply too easy in Dallas County compared to Collin County. Collin especially has assessors assigned to specific areas that they specialize in and are pretty much waiting for you to challenge their assessment. Dallas should adopt this system. We do these challenges for people and its amazing how much Dallas County lets property owners get away with.

I'm somewhat amazed (or just confused) by this conversation. If I understand, people aren't paying enough in property taxes because valuations are off. So, basically, y'all are complaining that property taxes are too low and people aren't paying enough.

That's crazy. Property taxes are such a burden, even at 70% valuation. I'm not planning to buy a house for at least 4-5 years so that I can build up enough equity to lower my mortgage payment BECAUSE property taxes are so high. If you're *only* putting down 20%, the monthly payment for buying is prohibitive vs renting a comparable space.

To clarify my comment, people with a Homestead Exemption (and especially ones with a 65+ exemption) should have artificially low valuations and pay the least amount of taxes. It's when you have two or three homes and think you're gonna play the real estate game, own 5 AirBnB properties or whatever, that you need to play fair. By fair, I mean pay the full amount of taxes on your second and third and fourth property.

lakewoodhobo wrote:To clarify my comment, people with a Homestead Exemption (and especially ones with a 65+ exemption) should have artificially low valuations and pay the least amount of taxes. It's when you have two or three homes and think you're gonna play the real estate game, own 5 AirBnB properties or whatever, that you need to play fair. By fair, I mean pay the full amount of taxes on your second and third and fourth property.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

How's the city to know when a property is held as a residence versus an income potential flip? That might be a dumb question, I don't know.

The Mayor's process would become politicized. If someone wants to tear down an old apartment building in a place like East Dallas to put up a new one, like the many projects happening today, they will have to run a political gauntlet over displacing moderate income renters with more well off renters. This will not only kill the redevelopment of places like East Dallas, it will also reduce the development of new moderately priced apartments that would serve renters that are displaced.

dukemeredith wrote:I'm somewhat amazed (or just confused) by this conversation. If I understand, people aren't paying enough in property taxes because valuations are off. So, basically, y'all are complaining that property taxes are too low and people aren't paying enough.

That's crazy. Property taxes are such a burden, even at 70% valuation. I'm not planning to buy a house for at least 4-5 years so that I can build up enough equity to lower my mortgage payment BECAUSE property taxes are so high. If you're *only* putting down 20%, the monthly payment for buying is prohibitive vs renting a comparable space.

That is a problem with the tax RATE that should be addressed. But you don't address it by artificially reducing the appraised value of a property. It's a completely backwards process, and the city looses as a result. Artificially suppressing appraised values actually causes rates to increase... particularly when streets aren't getting paid, pensions are being cut, and cities resort to bonds.

muncien wrote:

dukemeredith wrote:I'm somewhat amazed (or just confused) by this conversation. If I understand, people aren't paying enough in property taxes because valuations are off. So, basically, y'all are complaining that property taxes are too low and people aren't paying enough.

That's crazy. Property taxes are such a burden, even at 70% valuation. I'm not planning to buy a house for at least 4-5 years so that I can build up enough equity to lower my mortgage payment BECAUSE property taxes are so high. If you're *only* putting down 20%, the monthly payment for buying is prohibitive vs renting a comparable space.

That is a problem with the tax RATE that should be addressed. But you don't address it by artificially reducing the appraised value of a property. It's a completely backwards process, and the city looses as a result. Artificially suppressing appraised values actually causes rates to increase... particularly when streets aren't getting paid, pensions are being cut, and cities resort to bonds.

I generally agree that high rates shouldn't be corrected by low valuations. Just lower the rates! But if rates are lowered and valuations set at FMV, the end result is probably the same.

Suppressed values isn't novel to DFW, either. In fact, I'm of the impression that Dallas County does a BETTER job with their appraisals. Everywhere I've lived has property appraisals significantly lower than FMV. I've guessed it was done intentionally as a way of encouraging homeownership — a bit of a subsidy.

The difference between here and in Florida or North Carolina is that property tax rates are MUCH lower there than here in DFW.

Florida can do this by taxing developers with impact fees, etc.

North Carolina can do this by having a state income tax.