New and Creative Ways to Manipulate the Data

When I heard the numbers were posted for the 2019 reassessment, I couldn’t help but check them out. 

I discovered several new and unusual things, but one of particular interest.

It’s valid practice to treat houses in the same subdivision as best comps.  With few exceptions, they are generally going to be the best comps available.  Exceptions would include older subdivisions with newer add-ons, or new builds in older subdivisions resulting from tear-downs, and even cases where someone simply paid way too much for one particular house.

In 2017 and 2018, my subdivision had three home sales.  This is very unusual for us, as I don’t believe we’ve had three home sales in the ten years prior, combined.   We have a small subdivision and the residents just seem to want to stay put.  This was going to be the first reassessment ever where the County Assessor’s office would be using three homes from our own subdivision as comps, and the first real opportunity we would have had to be accurately assessed. 

Or so I thought.   I was wrong.

When I reviewed the comps listed on the reassessment notices, I only saw two of the houses being used.  After checking the posted list of valid home sales, I discovered why.  The County Assessor’s office hadn’t categorized the third house as a valid sale, but rather as an “Not Open Market” sale.

Except that it wasn’t a “Not Open Market” sale.  

It was a valid market sale.  It was listed with a realtor, just like the other two.  There was NOTHING that was "off" about this sale.  I know for a fact because the prior owner is a personal friend of mine.  I've also talked to the buyer and the real estate agent, and all are willing to sign affidavits as such.

I’m sure it’s just coincidental that they “mistakenly” flagged the least expensive of the three sales, right?

And I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that, by removing a subdivision house that sold for $446k from the list of comps, they could then replace it with a different comp – this time with a 9yo, more than 3000 sq. ft. house sitting on a half-acre+ lot, and located nearly a mile away.  No, it’s not a good comp for our neighborhood, and there are dozens of better comps available, but it sold for $555k – significantly more than any of the three home sales from within the subdivision -- and that’s what’s important if the sole motivation of the County Assessor’s office is to hike up assessed values.  And they’re simply not going to be able to do that by selecting a property that sold for less than what they already previously assessed the neighborhood houses two years prior.  

So, they manipulate the selection of comps, and apparently the list of eligible comps as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:  I received feedback on this from the County Assessor's office.  Ironically, they deny it and inadvertently confirm it in the same explanation.  For example:
... property was either sold out of estate,  or as a result of a divorce, which raises “red flags” in terms of whether the seller was under duress or time pressures that might have resulted in accepting a below-market price.

In other words, they don't know, and apparently aren't obligated to have any proof.  But if the price looks low to them, they get to flag it as not a valid sale.

Obviously, with this filter, they aren't looking for homes that are over-priced to flag.....