KCRag Forum

The new valuations are loaded on the Jackson Co. parcel viewer. It seems like some must be mistakes. On the 4500 block of Forest most houses have a listed market value of under $40k, with none over $80k, but there is one house on the block that is listed at $180k....jumping up from a 2017 valuation of $28k. There is just no way that is accurate.

If you mean by the City, it would be the wrong year to try that.

Same is true on the 4400 block of Forest. Most houses are listed in the 30-40k Market valuation, but one house is listed at over $111k, jumping from at $20k valuation in 2017....again, probably a mistake given no one else on the street jumped.

kboish wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:43 pm Same is true on the 4400 block of Forest. Most houses are listed in the 30-40k Market valuation, but one house is listed at over $111k, jumping from at $20k valuation in 2017....again, probably a mistake given no one else on the street jumped.

4433 Forest got a complete rehab. It was also reassessed a little over year ago and was valued then at ~2-8x more what others around were.

Probably not a mistake if that's the one you're referring to.



Edit: nope, wasn't that one, it was across the street and I see why it went up. Look at the interior reno photo. A $111k assessment is still low since that selling price is fair. A 6 bed in the northland would sell for over $450k

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4430 ... 7134_zpid/


Go look at street view of the 4400 block of Forest on google street view. It's clear this street is going to keep jumping in value. About 20% of the street has been renovated recently.

Yeah, there is no doubt property assessments are going up, but if you completely rehab a house then you'd expect a 200%+ increase in the value. Or if a house gets built new on your block its going to increase the value of your own house. When a house is only given a market valued of $20,000, any increase is going to be astronomical when given as a percentage, but even a 200% increase is still a relatively low valued house.

That said, I'd still appeal. I get it.

On the practical side it won't be appealed, it looks to still owned by the company doing the flipping.

They will want the high assessment to support their selling price.

We have a number of houses in Squier that were rehabbed in 2010-12 and continued to assess at close to the pre-rehab rate... until this year when they adjusted to current market value. The result means that, while the valuations are probably correct, homeowners are looking at a 500% increase. There should be a mechanism that caps the annual percentage increase.

If the board is hoping for 200% increase why not set your value at 350-450 higher and then when you appeal they drop it to 200% and you feel like you won. I bet that as what's happening.

Too much strategy

Developer hits pause on New Landing Mall project

The potential developer of the New Landing Mall has put the project on hold.
...
However, Sunflower confirmed Wednesday that the project was on hold, though company officials declined to provide additional information.
...

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... pment.html

FangKC wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:23 pm Developer hits pause on New Landing Mall project

The potential developer of the New Landing Mall has put the project on hold.
...
However, Sunflower confirmed Wednesday that the project was on hold, though company officials declined to provide additional information.
...

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... pment.html

New Waddell and Reed campus...

https://www.flatlandkc.org/news-issues/ ... hborhoods/

This is a nice article on the struggles to finance residential redevelopment/investment on the east side. This article should be presented in tandem with any article that discusses gentrification. It really is a difficult balancing act. How do you invest in an area without increasing the value of the area? A sort of snake eating its own tail sort of situation.

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:18 am https://www.flatlandkc.org/news-issues/ ... hborhoods/

This is a nice article on the struggles to finance residential redevelopment/investment on the east side. This article should be presented in tandem with any article that discusses gentrification. It really is a difficult balancing act. How do you invest in an area without increasing the value of the area? A sort of snake eating its own tail sort of situation.

In ten years, if the investors looking at this area are successful, people will say it was gentrification, but that is exactly what the people who live there are asking for. So what is supposed to happen?

flyingember wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:27 am

kboish wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:43 pm Same is true on the 4400 block of Forest. Most houses are listed in the 30-40k Market valuation, but one house is listed at over $111k, jumping from at $20k valuation in 2017....again, probably a mistake given no one else on the street jumped.

4433 Forest got a complete rehab. It was also reassessed a little over year ago and was valued then at ~2-8x more what others around were.

Probably not a mistake if that's the one you're referring to.



Edit: nope, wasn't that one, it was across the street and I see why it went up. Look at the interior reno photo. A $111k assessment is still low since that selling price is fair. A 6 bed in the northland would sell for over $450k

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4430 ... 7134_zpid/


Go look at street view of the 4400 block of Forest on google street view. It's clear this street is going to keep jumping in value. About 20% of the street has been renovated recently.

That's the problem with getting permits for your rehab

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:21 am

kboish wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:18 am https://www.flatlandkc.org/news-issues/ ... hborhoods/

This is a nice article on the struggles to finance residential redevelopment/investment on the east side. This article should be presented in tandem with any article that discusses gentrification. It really is a difficult balancing act. How do you invest in an area without increasing the value of the area? A sort of snake eating its own tail sort of situation.

In ten years, if the investors looking at this area are successful, people will say it was gentrification, but that is exactly what the people who live there are asking for. So what is supposed to happen?

Everyone wants affordable housing and they want it to look like a renovated home or a home that belongs in the neighborhood.

A neighborhood with walkable retail, jobs nearby for everyone, houses on every lot, low crime, children playing outside, with bike lanes, great transit and such is in such demand that it will be it's very nature gentrify. You can't make a neighborhood great for current residents without it being one people want to invest in.

If you've never seen the show Good Bones it's a good exercise in this very idea in Indianapolis. They started out buying city owned homes for super cheap and renovating them to reduce blight in inner city neighborhoods. Throughout the show they mention they're being priced out of the neighborhoods they used to work in as selling prices for everything goes up.

In the KC context places like Beacon Hill can now support $300k homes. So investors are moving south and east. There was a star article on this for the neighborhoods the other side of US 71 from Beacon Hill where they were trying to support development without forcing existing residents out.

Obviously the problem isn't the value, it's the total cost of housing getting too high for existing residents.

It's why I love the idea of top/bottom or front/back duplexes. It allows someone to come in and build new to match a neighborhood without the same living cost as a brand new single family home and you get a bonus of higher density. There's thousands of lots this would be a great development model for.

Mixed size development in every neighborhood would make the focus not on keeping someone in a specific home as the most important thing but on keeping someone in the same neighborhood as the most important thing.

“Good bones”- Lets take an old house, completely tear it down except for saving the front door, put it on a new building and call it a restoration.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:38 am “Good bones”- Lets take an old house, completely tear it down except for saving the front door, put it on a new building and call it a restoration.

Think of how many structures the city has just torn down. If instead they had sold it and someone who would have put a new building on the existing foundation there would be a lot more houses in some neighborhoods.

There's old stone foundations and porches that would cost $30k in labor to remake today. A new foundation would be around $10k.

A nice door can cost $500.

Reusing anything you can on a dangerous home, no matter how small, is another piece of the affordability equation.

I wouldn't call it a restoration but I also wouldn't completely dismiss the practice.

Sorry, I just have a personal hatred of the show. I find myself screaming at the tv when they say hardwood floors can’t be restored just because of one spot in one room. Then they put back click together floating floor. They do a terrible job of repurposing anything and history means nothing. And furry rugs and stuff.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:11 am Sorry, I just have a personal hatred of the show. I find myself screaming at the tv when they say hardwood floors can’t be restored just because of one spot in one room. Then they put back click together floating floor. They do a terrible job of repurposing anything and history means nothing. And furry rugs and stuff.

You clearly don't understand how television works. Hint: it's edited and you don't get all the facts.

That spot could be showing them there's not enough wear layer left to refinish the floor. You can only sand and refinish a 70 year old floor so many times. Especially if there have been water problems that led to rot, and homes worth only $15k and water leaks go together.

Click together floating floors are how you make houses more affordable. It also enables simpler repair of the floor in the future helping prolong it's life and you can take it up and repurpose it in another room or home making the product dramatically greener.

But to say they're terrible at repurposing things means you literally have never watched the show. Excessive saving and repurposing of items is literally one of the cliches the show has in place. The daughter complains endlessly about her mother wanting to save *everything* and that she was being limited in space for her hoarding.

The problem has never been about improving the neighborhood. Gentrification is not about that. It is about a certain percentage of the population that cannot afford housing--whether it be rental or ownership. That is why so many fear and fight gentrification. They are simply afraid of losing the cheap housing they struggle to keep because their income doesn't provide enough to cover increases.