Are you aware that an improvement's expense doesn't lead to a 1:1 change in property value? It would be silly to demand that every tiny change in a property's value be captured, and new paint or carpet or whatever lead to tiny changes in value, even if they might cost tens of thousands. Value in this context only exists in relation to the rest of the market, which is why reassessing at sale and regularly thereafter is the best approach.

You can keep repeating this and I'll keep repeating the response I've already given. You're not even offering an alternative here!

Lol it seems like you're not really reading my comments here and instead projecting your own attitudes onto me. I think all improvements should be captured, you said that's impossible. That your criticism hinges on whether or not minor improvements are captured does not strengthen it. No system is perfect but more regularly capturing these changes and eliminating the CLR would fix the most glaring ones.

If you buy a home with a higher value (ie new windows, roof, and carpet) you should indeed expect to pay more in taxes.

>Frequency of assessment has no effect either way on newcomer tax if the common level ratio is accurate.

There is no CLR if assessments happen on a short, regular schedule. The whole thing is a dumb workaround for a crappy, inconsistent system.

>Most interior modifications don’t require permits unless they are structural.

All building systems typically require permits if they are modified/upgraded. Most substantial interior improvements require structural work in Pittsburgh homes.

>The housing market is heavily weighted toward flashy cosmetic updates to drive up the price.

And these are captured when a house is reassessed at sale.

> Nobody wants assessments to be invasive interior inspections.

That's fine because most interior cosmetic renovations don't have a huge impact on property value.

>Many exterior modifications can be non obvious like roof and window replacements which don’t require permits.

These improvements alone don't have a significant impact on property value. If you put a new roof on your house you won't get anywhere close to 100% of the cost out anytime soon. The same goes for windows, unless you enlarge them (which requires a permit).

>In a low priced neighborhood, renovations can double the house price with no permit updates

A proportional doubling in a low-price neighborhood has less of an impact on the overall tax levied on that property. And these improvements are less likely to have that impact in a neighborhood that is otherwise less desirable (which causes the low prices in the first place).

>I’m in favor of more frequent assessments. I just want to point out it’s still not going to fix the “newcomers tax” issue

I'm not sure how you figure this. The exact problem you describe here can only exist in a system without regular reassessments. There is no rule that says that assessments can't take into account interior modifications, and permits are required for many of those anyway. The system doesn't work unless the assessments are somewhat accurate, just like it doesn't work if the assessments are not somewhat regular, so I think that is an unreasonable criticism of a proposed alternative.

I think it varies too much to set one number for the whole county, so the current system is stupid and should be replaced.

The actual number of renovations that are going to change property values by that much across all those areas is going to be vanishingly small. The biggest factor remains location and that can be accounted for by looking at sales comps. The idea that this stuff is unknowable is pretty silly, I think. Plenty of people in the market engage with these conditions and set prices for properties all the time.

Those changes are incidental and pretty meaningless. Significant improvements should have permits or even just be visible from the street.

There's no reason it can't capture that value. The assessor should know roughly what those cost and how it relates to other comps with similar features. More importantly, regular assessments would capture the value of major improvements and changes in value due to location.

Right, which is why I question the motives of the people seeking to adjust the ratio way down

The current system benefits longtime property holders way more than regular reassessments would. Taxing people based on property area would be silly because property is bought, sold, and apportioned based largely on value rather than size. The tax is intended to capture a portion of a value-based market.

Reassessing every year (or close to it) is the best available approach

No dancing there

I think people assume that improvements etc should not count towards their reassessment but they absolutely should

The amounts are not outrageous, they are sale price or less

The assessment is supposed to be based on changes in value since 2012, it's not intended to pretend time stopped a decade ago.

Employers don't pay that tax

The bare minimum is not adequate, no

Damn you are really flailing

I'm not interested in your bullshit attempt to change the subject but the facts of police killings are utterly clear. Approximately twice as many white people are killed by police than black people, but black people make up a much smaller proportion of the American population. The only person playing fast and loose with the statistics here is you, and your half-assed caveats illustrate that pretty well. In this comment you are doing exactly the thing you just complained about, lol.

Fuck off

Nobody needs your garbage excuses

You're full of shit as usual. Doesn't seem like you understand the basic statistical concepts here, and you're no less engaged in forming a narrative than anyone else.

Black people are vastly more likely to be killed by the police than whites, but there are also more white than black people in America. If you gave enough of a shit to think about this for more than a second it would become quite clear. If you're not willing to do that, then shut the fuck up