Housing

Brainformation is about the information in your brain and the way it's perceived. This forum specialize in the exchange of ideas and thoughts that do not fit into our special interests categories.

Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 19 Aug 2014, 14:27

The cost of buying a house in the south of the country's ridiculous. I don't think many young couples'll be moving into parts of Buckinghamshire, where the average house prices're 20 times the average wage!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28648704
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Yogi » 20 Aug 2014, 07:05

The housing market in England follows the simple rule of economics based on supply and demand. Prices of homes rise due to one of two factors. Either the cost of building them increases dramatically or the demand is greater than the supply. It seems to be demand pulling up the prices in Buckinghamshire. While salaries were a criteria in this comparison, age of the wage earners was not. The assumption is that older people have more money, but from a mortgage company's point of view a young couple is more likely than an older couple to pay off that 60 year mortgage. In any case it's a seller's market and there are plenty of buyers who can meet their terms.
User avatar
Yogi
Oracle Class Poster
Oracle Class Poster
 
Posts: 7013
Joined: 04 Aug 2007, 19:37
Location: Chicagoland

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 20 Aug 2014, 10:40

It's true what you've said Yogi, but these steep prices're forcing younger people to move out of the areas they probably grew up in, and where some of them've managed to get jobs. Even then it's difficult.

Buying a first house in the UK isn't easy for most folk. There's a 10 - 15% deposit to put down, which in itself isn't easy to save for along with travelling expenses and what you need to live on.

The government're saying that far more new and affordable houses've got to be built, both to buy and to rent, but land's scarce in some areas, and so pieces of greenbelt, which once couldn't be built on're now having to be used for this purpose, much to the consternation of local people.

A relative's daughter's struggling to save enough money for a deposit on a house. In order to see her dream materialise, she still lives at home. Her parents generously keep her for virtually nothing while she and her partner save every possible penny, but they both need cars to travel to work, and their combined wages're so low that they have nothing over. The couple've been saving for 2 years and still aren't there yet. For those wishing to live in affluent areas or in the countryside, the chances of being able to afford anything won't arrive for many years to come.

It just makes me wonder how, years ago when young couples first moved into these areas, they were able to afford their homes in the first place, especially as the women often stayed at home to look after their young children, and yet now, it's becoming impossible for many. : (
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 20 Aug 2014, 12:17

Hi Icey

I don't know about your country.
But here, the cities themselves are the biggest detriment to affordable housing.
I'm mainly speaking about County Municipalities, not the major older cities.

It even applies here where I live, where you have a nice house, a shack, and a trailer, all in the same block.

Every few years the minimum size home requirement goes up, as a city tries to increase its tax base, and appear to become more affluent.

Only a century ago, a family could build a small but solid home fairly cheaply. It was not uncommon to find clusters of starter homes in a small subdivision at the outskirts of a municipality which ranged from 400 to 600 sq. ft. Just inside the city line, the minimum size home was 800 sq. ft. and required several types of permit approvals and inspections.

The subdivision I lived in before moving south, at the time it was built, the minimum size home that could be built in the county was 1000 sq ft. When we bought the house, this had increased to 1200 sq ft, and at the time we sold the house to move south, the minimum was 1,600 sq. ft. in existing subdivisions, 2,000 sq ft in new subdivisions.

The small area where the original 400 to 600 sq ft homes once stood. A developer came up with a gorgeous subdivision of fancy looking homes, each with the ability to be expanded rearward, doubling their size. But the wanted the initial homes to be around 675 sq ft. The county did not allow them to build homes that small. So all the homes built in that subdivision were at the minimum 1,200 sq ft size, and unaffordable to those they were designed for. Too BIG to be called a starter home.
Then the crazy county decided to allow multi-family dwellings in an area where such was never allowed in the past. Over 700 nice homes dropped in value by close to 50% because of it too. Now that area is nothing but apartments and condo's.
We have areas designated and zoned for apartments, with some mighty fancy ones consuming most of the area. Lower cost apartments are no longer found in most of our municipalities, unless there were there for decades. Even then, some of them changed hands, which meant two apartments were often converted to a single larger apartment, due to code restrictions.

Across the county line, a smart builder, constructed over 1000 apartments, which like like small homes from the outside. Like some of the condo designs. Every other front apartment had a garage and driveway, while the ones between them had a rear garage and driveway. The place looked awesome from the highway.
When he opened for business, the rent he charged was less than half of most other apartments. There were very few anywhere less than his. So the place filled up fast.
But I had a great unbeatable deal where I was living, when I still lived in apartments that is.
When the average price for a 575 sq ft apartment was around 300, I was only paying 112.50 per month.
When the large apartment complex was completed, the average rent was closer to 400 for a single, 500 for a double, but not much bigger overall. All one bedroom second floor or those facing the rear, were only 200 bucks per month. Facing rear first floor with garage was 225, facing front with a garage 250. Two bedrooms were only 75 bucks a month higher than the singles. At the end of each run of two story apartments was a three story townhouse, but the roof was only like five feet higher than the rest of the building, because these had a deeper basement as part of the design.
Within about five years of opening, as folks did move out, and new tenants moved in, the prices had almost, but not quite doubled. It changed hands a number of years later and I think became condo's...
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 20 Aug 2014, 15:05

Hi Gary.

Well I understand that over time, house/flat prices're bound to go up, but the so-called value placed on some homes're now so high that it's very, very difficult for many people to get on the property ladder at all.

Near Derby, for example, some 2-bed terraced properties were recently on sale for just under £120,000 (approx. $199,200.)

If a couple could afford to put down 10% deposit, borrowing £108,000 over 25 years (usual) it'd cost them £631.36p. a month. Should the interest rate go up by just 2%, the monthly repayment'd be £763. 32p. This's without insurances, Council Tax, gas, electrcity, phone line, water rates, general living costs and runnng a car/travelling expenses. A young couple'd both have to be working. If they decided to have a family, then without the other having a decent job, the woman'd have to return to work and probably face horrendous child-care costs, which're usually in excess of a further £400 a month.

This's based on the very cheapest of properties which hardly has any garden and only one toilet in with the bathroom.

Some firms over here haven't given their employees annual rises for a few years, so they have to struggle on the same income, despite mortgage repayments and utility bills rising. This means that some're stuck in a cycle of paying out most of what they earn, or, they have to sell their properties when things get too much, and then have little chance of moving into anything any better.

Now take areas where houses're in excess of £350,000 (over half a million US dollars). Either wealthy parents'll help their children out, or a couple'd have to have very good jobs.

A doctor relative of mine married another doctor last year. They live on the south coast where properties're expensive. Despite them having good professions, they're STILL finding it a bit of a struggle - and this's a couple in their 30's. For them, the only way to end up with a bigger and better house's to work for a few more years, then sell up and move north - if they can get jobs. That's exactly what 2 friends of ours've done. They were buying a property in London, and managed to get a 5 bedroomed place up this way for almost half the price they'd pay down south.

It's a problem for many though, and as the population expands, there're going to be more and more people who can't afford to live in a place of their own - if anywhere. Rents're catching up with mortgages.
Last edited by Ice.Maiden on 21 Aug 2014, 15:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 21 Aug 2014, 13:53

Hi Icey

If they do their homework, they should be able to find a 108 house for 27, but it takes study and work and learning a few ropes.

All I'm saying is, it can be done, you don't have to pay retail...

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 21 Aug 2014, 15:48

Hi Gary.

I'm sure you're right, but it still isn't easy.

I was watching a bit of a programme about houses up for auction the other day. The bidding started quite low, and was expected to hit the 100K mark, due to a lot of work needing to be done on it. It sold for more than double the expectation. Then viewers were shown the house when the new owner went to look at it. He'd made blind bids basically, and the place needed thousands spending on it.

When it was completed, the cameras went back to see what'd been done. Very nice, but there was a stumbling block. The place was no bigger than its neighbours, and the man doubted that, if he sold it on as he'd hoped, he wouldn't get his money back. If the place'd been situated just a mile up the road, he'd have been able to sell it and make a bit of a profit, so he decided to live in it himself and hope that the market for such houses in the area'd improve.

This was a guy who looked to be around 40 though. Youngsters wouldnt've been able to bid for what it went for, let alone have all the extra cash they'd have needed to do it up. Almost every bit of the place needed work doing on it, inside and out.

I feel so sorry for the kids of today, and just hope that things get better job-wise.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 22 Aug 2014, 12:16

Well Icey, I was in the renovation business, and licensed in the major trades.
I would buy houses most others would pass up, simply because it fit in with what I could do easily.
Even so, I always didn't buy derelict houses. I bought six in one day that each passed code and had a long term tenant already in place. Did very little to them the seven years I owned them.
But most of the houses I did buy were for renovation purposes, so paid very little for any of them.
I can show you the title companies closing papers on many of them to prove I paid less for the house and land, for less than 1/3 of what the land itself was worth.
For example: I may have paid only 6 to 10 grand for the house and land. The land if empty would have fetched 15 to 30 grand sold as a lot. I put about 15 grand in materials in a house, which means the labor was about the same, and would sell the house for 45 to 75 thousand. I usually priced them so the owner had at least 25% instant equity in the house. This made it much easier for them to get a mortgage if need be.
Most often, after I did all the code work, I resold the properties to other renovators to do the drywall and painting. Then came back to install the fixtures and close up the electric boxes.
It was a good business for me, at the time and my energy levels.

I don't recommend anyone buy a house at auction from the courthouse steps.
For one, they come with all the encumbrances still on them.
And secondly, you are competing against the bank who already owns the property.
They will bid far more than a house is worth, as a ploy to get more money out of the bloke they foreclosed on.
Banks do not lose money, even if they give a house away for nothing.
I know, they've run me through their system a few times, and netted will over 50k in profits from doing so.
It's how they work, which is why I never used bank loans to buy properties afterward.

You can buy houses at REO auctions, because they have NO encumbrances. You get a clear title to the house and land. It's the only way to buy at auction. Next best is to buy from those who do buy at auction add a couple of grand profit and resell the property to renovators. You still get a clear title this way too, and often the place was cleaned of excess debris.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 22 Aug 2014, 15:43

Phew Gary. I don't know if things work the same way here, but I wouldn't know where to begin at an auction like that.

It's still a lucrative business for those who want to make a bit of money, providing they can pick a property up at reasonable figure, do it up and then sell it on at a profit, but as the above example showed, depending on how much money you spend on it, you can price yourself out of the market.

If you have a row of terraced houses, and manage to pull one at £80,000 for instance, it's no good spending half as much again on some ultra-modern kitchen and bathroom and trying to sell it for £130 - 140,000 when its value's in line with similar properties which might sell for £120,000. People aren't going to pay that sort of money for a place which's in a downtrodden area, unless they're buying to let, and they wouldn't be making any profit for a few years.

If someone has the money to buy 1 or 2 properties to let and can bide their time though, bricks and mortar increase in value providing they're kept maintained. We have an estate agent in our family, and he did this a few years ago and now makes money from his houses, but he's had to sell a couple of them for less than he wanted, albeit at a bit of a profit.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 23 Aug 2014, 13:24

Once I got out of it, I would never own rental properties again. But at the time I did, it was almost mandatory the way our crazy laws are written.
To make this understandable, it had to do with when the buyer took possession of the property for the purpose intended. We are taxed on the type of inventory, appreciable or depreciate-able assets.
Houses bought for the purpose of renovation and resale, are taxed as an appreciable asset from the day of purchase. Even if you cannot get to renovating and reselling them for a year or more. It's like the raw materials used to make a product.
Houses bought solely for rental purposes have other tax categories, not relevant for this topic.
Houses bought for renovation purposes, that have someone living in them, either an owner or tenant, have a few rules and tax breaks if purchased for something other than a rental property, even if it is a rental property when you buy it.
In other words, the house is purchased for the purpose of renovation, but said renovations cannot begin until the tenant vacates the premises. This is when the buyer takes possession 'for the purpose intended.'
It was not purchased as a rental property, so does not go into the rental property inventory.
It was purchased as a renovation property, but because it has a tenant in it, it is not yet a part of the renovation property inventory.
So we have a third inventory classification, very similar to a manufacturers raw materials in transit classification. They bought the materials, but they are not yet in their countable inventory, and therefore not yet taxable as on-hand, in-stock, inventory.
In our case, even though we bought and paid for the house, and the deed to the property is in our company name, we have not yet taken possession (delivery) of the house until the tenant vacates the premises. Thus the property itself is neither an asset or a liability, it is neither appreciable or depreciate-able. We own it, and must pay the Real Estate taxes on it, and the insurance if occupied, keep it up to code, etc. But as far as the Inventory Taxes are concerned, there are none until it is physically in our inventory. We do have income from the tenant which is taxable, and maintenance expenses which are deductible, the same as all the other expenses. But the Basis does not change, nor is it taxed as inventory. In other words, the sale is not Final until we take possession, so it is in a Pending Inventory classification, which at the time I was in the business, did not have an inventory tax. I'm pretty sure all raw materials and properties are now taxed as in inventory from the time of purchase, whether they were delivered yet or not. Things change so rapidly in this business. How I bought a house one year, may have different rules the following year, and change again the year after that.

This is why I always had a Real Estate Attorney who worked together with a Tax Attorney, often in adjoining offices, to make sure they earned their keep. I had to save more than they cost me, and they knew it!

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 23 Aug 2014, 16:43

Good ... heavens!

There're quite a few properties within our family, most for sale but some to rent. The latter all have tenants in them now, some of which're tied to their jobs. I have absolutely nothing to do with any of that, although I've shown prospective people around. It all sounds too complicated for my liking, although I don't think things're quite so bad over here as how you've described yours! : (
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 24 Aug 2014, 14:53

I guess most renovators don't bother learning of some of the little tricks and loopholes the big wigs have added to the laws to benefit them, in order to take advantage of them when possible.

Most of the time, we don't meet all the criteria, since the law was written to benefit a certain person, and to keep most others from being able to use it.

I have a neighbor who scours all these added-in legal variances and finds ways he can use them to irk the city.
For example: You cannot build a house on a lot narrower than 75 feet in my area, narrow than 100 feet in most other areas. In three city zones houses can be built on 35 foot wide lots, so they touch each other.
He found a variance, where a poly-TICK-ian wanted to build a home on a lot only 40 foot wide, in our zone rating. It had so many stipulations to allow it, almost no one could do it. But the stipulations were written so this poly-TICK-ian cleared them with ease.
90% of small lots would not meet one-fourth of these.
But my neighbor searched and searched until he found a lot, a little wider, which met every stipulation.
He had to fight to get the permits, and even sue the city a couple of times for not complying with their own law variances. He eventually got the house built and sold.

Although everyone around where he built it filed one complaint after another. The laws were amended so a poly-TICK-ian could build a house under the same circumstances. Once a variance is allowed, it stays with the law, until the law itself is superseded by a new law.
The city knows they can't make an exception for one by writing a variance into the law for them, without allowing others to use it also. So they add several stipulations that only the original applicant, the poly-TICK-ian would pass. Things like the distance to the neighbors structures, location of driveway, height of house does not shade neighbors yard, structures can only cover 30% of property, etc.

I get a kick out of the way this guy harasses the poly-TICK-ians for getting laws passed to suit only them.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 25 Aug 2014, 15:09

Yes, if you're going to build your own place, there're various laws over here which govern dimensions and a few other things. I suppose when planning permission's granted, all these bits and bobs're taken into consideration, because if a build goes just a few inches over where it's supposed to be, the owner can be made to take it all down again. Not blocking out light's another one, and there're various building regulations which have to be adhered to. A family member of ours's in the process of having a house built atm, but it's been pretty straight forward. They don't overlook anyone, and the plans've been approved for the rather large place they want.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 26 Aug 2014, 10:31

Curiosity killed the cat.
I just checked two counties away from my county. Thinking like back home, the further out you get, the less restrictions.
That may have been true a couple of decades ago, but now it seems all the counties are very heavily politically controlled.
Coffee County, which is rural and mostly farms, has a 1,500 sq ft minimum for new home construction.
Rutherford County is the only county I found that allows a 600 sq ft home to be built and occupied, BUT the design must be expandable, with plans to finish the home to 1,200 sq ft within four years. Basically it allows someone to build half of their home, and move in while they finish the second half.

I can see such restrictions within municipal zones, and subdivisions in fringe areas, but for an entire rural county. It leaves No Place for starter homes, or for someone to build a small fishing or vacation cabin.

Around some of our lakes, the smallest size homes allowed are 3,500 sq ft. Meaning only the very rich can afford a small (choke) lake house.
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 26 Aug 2014, 12:58

I'm not sure, but I think the same building regulations apply across our country, but things seem to change all the time. For instance, no one could build on "green belt" land, but now it IS being used, much to the consternation of villagers and conservationalists.

Surveyors look at building plans and assess whether the plans submitted break any regulations. Building plots're often sold as "for two houses" or "four houses", for instance, so if a buyer buys the land, he can probably build just one larger place if he wants to. I'm not familiar with residential land buying, but providing someone shows that his or her intentions don't violate any drainage laws, blah blah, most of them go ahead.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 27 Aug 2014, 10:37

Same here Icey.
Also, it's who you know, and how much money do you want to palm a poly-TICK-ians hand with.

Debi's father wanted to place a mobile home on his back lot for two years.
He had mobile homes on each side of his house at the time.
The city told him no mobile homes were allowed in this subdivision.
As the old ones were gone, no new ones could take their place.

So he built a 1000 sq ft garage and secretly moved into it, while he tore out the plaster and replaced it with drywall in his house.
No sooner than he finished the house and moved back in. Up pops two new trailers across the street from his house. Another one down the street.
Needless to say, he was furious.
The city told him they were not mobile homes, they were modular homes.
A fancy name for a mobile home, if you take the wheels off and add skirting around it.

Before I moved down here, they passed a new law for our subdivision, no mobile homes, no modular homes, and no pre-assembled homes.
Somehow in the way they worded it, IF the structure was built on a cement or masonry foundation, they could get by with it. So in came a dozen mobile homes. They poured the foundation footing, rolled the mobile home over it, centering the edges over the footing, then just laid cinder blocks from the footing up to the mobile home. It won't happen within the block I live in now, because we all went up to city hall and had the zoning commission say only on-site stick-built homes, containing no pre-fabricated structural components, other than a wood factory-made truss roof is allowed on our block. Since ALL of us went up there, and signed the documents, it was a shoe-in...

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 27 Aug 2014, 12:23

Interesting.

OK., over here, you can park a touring caravan on your driveway - or anything which can be driven away. If you place something which someone's going to live in, there're regulations because of Council Tax which has to be paid, permission from the respective Councils - and whether it violates other laws or any neighbours might complain.

Back "home", a friend of ours erected a huge timber-built shed. At first, it was used to house his work things and used as a store room for his business stock. Originally, he'd wanted an upstairs part to it, but it wasn't allowed to, as this made it look like a house!

As time went on, he decided to turn it into living quarters for his elderly parents. Bear in mind, this structure was sited on his own land, well out of the way of prying eyes and not harming anything - but no. Someone got wind of it, reported him and not only wasn't he allowed to go ahead and complete his plans, but the entire lot had to come down! It was deemed as far too big for storage use, even though he has a tractor, sit-on mowers and other machinery, but the way he partitioned it off meant that it looked like a residential dwelling. He wasn't allowed water connection, yet it was wired for electricity. He was fuming that someone'd "shopped" him to the authorities - and later found out that it was his wife!! She hadn't wanted her in-laws living so close by!

As for giving "bungs" (money handed over) to local Councillors etc., it doesn't happen much over here. If you happen to know someone in the planning department, he/she might be generous in allowing a build which wouldn't usually get the go-ahead, but it's not just up to one person. These things can take ages to get a decision on, but if everything falls into an expected line, then the consent's obviously given more quickly. This mainly seems to happen with restoration projects though. People're snapping up old water towers, water works etc., and turning them into very desirable homes. So long as some of the original features're kept, permission usually arrives, although regular checks're made to make sure that the owner's complying with the rules of build.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 28 Aug 2014, 11:39

We are the only house left on our street where the front lot and back lot are still on two separate deeds to the land. This IRKS the tax collectors to no end. As properties up and down the street sold, it was mandatory for the two lots to be joined into one larger lot. There are benefits to doing this if you want to add-on to your house, build a larger garage or add storage sheds. But I already have a house, a large garage as big as a house and two storage sheds, all legal and within the 30% land use range.
My back lot has NO structure of any kind on it. I kept 1/3 of it as natural woods, I wanted to keep a little more than that, but a brother-in-law with a new chainsaw went hog wild while I was at the store.
My back lot is taxed as unimproved ground, the lowest tax rate. I can't place a garden on it, or it would be changed to farmland, which is taxed slightly higher. So I kept my garden just below the dividing property line.
The tax difference is phenomenal. If I added the back lot to the front, the tax on just the back lot alone would jump from 14 dollars to over 400 dollars per year.

It is also why I went through the long slow painstaking process of changing the deeds in a step by step process so as to not activate any land transfer laws, which would mean the deeds would need combined and changed. Legally, the land never had a transfer of ownership, although the actual owner did change. But as I said, it was a long slow process to do it all legally, and this method also included a five year reversal clause, which we are now long past.
Although this was a different state than where I understood the laws as my attorney explained them too me. I knew some of them had to be similar. So it was just a matter of finding the right attorney down here, who knew what loopholes existed and how to make good use of them. In this case, it wasn't actually a loophole, it was a precise plan instituted for the wealthy and poly-TICK-ians to transfer properties without being taxed on the transfers. If you follow the required steps exactly, although the owner changes, it was never a transfer of land from one party to another.
It works in nearly every state too! Although in many states there is a much higher Fee involved to do each step. So they get you one way or another. Even so, it is better to pay a one-time Fee, than have your taxes skyrocket and have to pay the higher amount each and every year.

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Re: Housing

Postby Ice.Maiden » 28 Aug 2014, 17:06

Hello Gary.

Yes, there're obviously big differences between how our respective countries operate with regard to property. Before Council Tax came in over here, folk paid rates on their homes. The larger the property, the higher the rates, but when the new tax was introduced, it meant that wealthier residents sighed with relief, as although it's "banded", they found that they might be better off. Not so for those in smaller properties, who found they were paying more.

At the time, there were demonstrations against what was called the Poll Tax, and a lot of people refused to pay. It was no good. They ended up being taken to court and fined, so eventually, fell into line like "good soldiers".

Now we have the so-called "Bedroom Tax", which applies only to those living in Council or Housing Association properties. As each family's children leave, or one of a couple dies etc., they're deemed to be living in homes which have spare rooms. Either you pay for the extra rooms that become available, or there's an option to move out to a smaller residence. However, there aren't enough of them, so the tenants get charged the extra cost each month. It's caused chaos in many instances, and if Labour get in at the next election, this could be a scoring point for them, as they've promised to scrap the tax altogether.

I could go on and on about some of the ridiculous laws, but there's no point.

I think the idea of you having a third of your land as natural woods's lovely. Who'd WANT to change that? It sounds very pleasant where you live.
User avatar
Ice.Maiden
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
 
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Housing

Postby Kellemora » 29 Aug 2014, 10:06

Hi Icey
I'll TRY to keep this short.

I live in an older subdivision, so the land is laid out in like a simple grid, like graph paper.
My house and land are at the southernmost edge of the subdivision, and my backyard extends uphill to the top of a small Smoky Mountain foothill.

When the subdivision was laid out, there was supposed to be a road at the south edge of the subdivision, on the very top of the foothill. No houses would be placed on the south side of this road, as it was the last road in the subdivision.

As you enter the subdivision from the north, driving south, the first few east/west streets of the grid are one-half acre apart, creating one-quarter acre housing lots. The next few streets, including my street, are one acre apart, allowing for half-acre housing lots.

The subdivision sellers offered a deal to those who purchased their half-acre lots on the south side of my street. Their offer was simple, we could buy the half acre lot behind us for one-fourth the price. A few who didn't take them up on their offer got a better deal. When they were the only ones left, the subdivision sellers sold them their upper lots for only like one-eighth the price.

There was a reason for them doing this. If they sold ALL the upper lots to the owners on the south side of my street, there would be no reason to build the last street in the subdivision, because there would be no half acre lots requiring street access. So they saved a bundle.
It also meant we would have No Neighbors on the hill above us, and our land ran to the top of the hill. Well Sorta. Because of the easement for the roadway, our land actually ends 15 feet below the top of the hill. On the other side of the hill was a working farm.

This is how those of us living on the south side of my street wound up with two deeds, one-half acre each.
The original deed shows the lot number my house sits on as being on my street, and the lot number for the back lot as being on a different street, which was never built.
Somewhere along the line, the official plat maps in the recorder of deeds office were corrected, so this non-existent street no longer showed as a street, and became subdivision common ground.
When the City of Knoxville annexed our subdivision, they made a few mistakes. They used the old plat map, that showed the easement for the street, and assumed it was the standard fifty foot wide easement with a twenty-five foot wide paved surface. No one really knows what they were thinking. But when our property was annexed, they drew the south boundary of the City, based on a fifty foot wide easement, when the easement was only thirty-five feet. Which put the City boundary line seven and one-half feet onto the properties of those of us who live on the south side of my street.

To complicate the issue further. The original street centerline followed the surveyed peak of the hill, so it was wavy. While the City drew a fairly straight line for their boundary line.
This is how the top of my property came to have one and one-half foot at the east edge, and four and one-half feet at the right edge, ending up staying in the County, not annexed by the City.

Ever since the City annexed the property, they were illegally collecting tax for our full one-half acre lot at the top of the hill, when they did not annex some of it. The County rightfully (I say that with reservation) taxed the full half acre, as the entire upper half acre is fully within the County.
A City NEVER refunds monies, even when they obtained them illegally. What they did do was not increase our unimproved ground taxes on that half acre for an equivalent number of years they collected too much tax. With the increases since then, we all come out ahead by about five to six dollars over a five year time frame. Whoppy Do eh!

Rather than fix their mistake and extend the annexation to the landowners property lines, as homeowners sell their property, they are forced to join their back lot with their front lot and get a new deed for the part of their land that lies within the City Limits, meaning they can no longer claim a full acre of land on that particular deed, but they can obtain a second deed for the top of the hill piece of land completely in the County.
The County does not like this, because it means they have to maintain two billing records for a single half acre lot, two deeds for one or what they now call a split tax deed, to prevent being charged with a Frontage Tax.

We think some of the taxes UK folks have to pay are crazy, like a tax for each TV, or as you just pointed out, a tax for your bedrooms. Some of ours are just as crazy. Like the Frontage Tax. This tax is based on the edge of your property against a roadway easement. Thankfully it is only paid for the frontage where your driveway is connected. So a person who lives on a corner lot is not paying two Frontage Taxes. Because of the wording, the street the driveway is connected to, some folks, like Debi's aunt, never had to pay a frontage tax. She had no driveway, nor did the plat maps ever show a recorded location for a driveway connection. Just taking out your driveway don't count, if the plat maps show a recorded connection point. It is up to the owner of the property to utilize the driveway connection point. Not having a driveway does not get you out of the tax.
In Debi's aunts case (she is no longer with us), she never drove, so never applied for a connection permit when getting them became law. All houses with a driveway, the surveyors automatically recorded the connection point. Some folks wanted to move their driveways, and because they didn't before they were recorded, could not afterwards.

I'm stopping here, because I said I would keep this short, and still ended up going on and on...

TTUL
Gary
User avatar
Kellemora
Brainiac Class Poster
Brainiac Class Poster
 
Posts: 3389
Joined: 07 Jul 2012, 18:52
Location: From St. Louis, current Knoxville, TN

Next

Return to Brain Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron