People Taxed On Homes that No Longer Exist

Everybody is expected to come together and sacrifice some after a disaster… except the government.

The people who lost their homes last week in the Lake Delton flood are hearing more grim news: They will have to pay the entire tax bill for their homes even though their properties no longer exist.

Lake Delton Village Clerk-Treasurer Kay Mackesey said property taxes are owed for the value of property as it existed on Jan. 1 - six months before the flood wiped out five homes and drained the lake.

Mackesey said village officials want to review how they could help those affected, but state Department of Revenue spokeswoman Meredith Helgerson said there are no exceptions to the law that says properties are taxed based on their Jan. 1 values.

“Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done for those folks,” Helgerson said.

Finish this sentence… trying to wrest a dollar out of a government official’s hand is like ______________.

1. I don’t have a problem with this.  When I built my house, I got almost a year of taxes at my unimproved lot rate.  The city I live in didn’t come an appraise it the day I moved in, and they didn’t prorate the taxes from my move in day.  These people will likely get the same when they rebuild.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 2000 hrs




2. It doesn’t seem like there would be much the village/county could do to collect the bill.  Let’s see them file a tax lien and foreclose on a piece of property that isn’t even there.

   Posted by on June 19, 2008 at 2051 hrs




3. "Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done for those folks”.

   Yes there is, douchebag. Don’t tax them. Are you brain dead?

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1030 hrs




4. Finish this sentence… trying to wrest a dollar out of a government official’s hand is like trying to milk a bull.

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1200 hrs




5. So let me get this straight…

   First these people couldn’t possibly insure their homes because of government bureaucracy… Screwed once…

   Now the government is screwing them again claiming that there are no exceptions…

   And ANYONE wants government running more of our lives too?  (healthcare)

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1213 hrs




6. Now the government is screwing them again claiming that there are no exceptions…

   The government does not come out the day a new house is moved into, and start the tax rate going… it waits until the next assessment period.  I don’t see the problem with this one.  It’s consistent on both ends.

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1242 hrs




7. When I die, my landlord will still be able to collect the rent on my apartment, even though I know longer exist.

   The landlords made sure that was the state law.

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1307 hrs




8. First these people couldn’t possibly insure their homes because of government bureaucracy

   This is a situation that I think is a little more complicated, and I don’t know much about flood insurance - I hope someone who does will read this and clarify.  From what I heard, the issue with the local goverment was what areas were to be designated “high risk” and eligible for subsidized FEMA coverage (or as the media likes to say, “free").  I do know that in our own locality, when someone’s property is designated in the flood plain, it becomes a hot political issue & people fight against that designation because if they have a mortgage, they are required to carry more costly insurance.

   Here’s a quote from an insurance newsletter (http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_pc&id; =84600)
   

   .....They got the air knocked out of them when they learned their mortgage companies were demanding they buy expensive flood insurance.

   What prompted the demand from the mortgage companies was the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s reassessment of its maps that put into a flood zone some properties that once weren’t thought to be hazards for flooding.

   Though the process has been months in the making, it was during this record-setting drought that homeowners started getting letters from their mortgage companies.

   They learned the flood insurance would cost thousands of dollars a year.

   “A hundred dollars more a month would break us,” remarked Tom Sandidge, 50, owner of T&M;Transmissions in Olive Branch.

   A few questions - how could the government have prevented these people from getting their own private flood insurance rider?  I think in this case, the local government had issue with FEMA on what areas to designate as being in the flood plain (people who would have been included would have been subjected to higher cost insurance).  Secondly, do we even know if the affected sites would have been included in a flood plain designation (some of it has to do with elevations).

   This situation seems to be a rather quirky mix of fate and geography - how often does the land disappear under you (except for an earthquake, which is also most likely an exclusion under your policy).

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1308 hrs




9. Not to mention included in my rent is the cost of property taxes.

   Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1308 hrs




10. To correct my prior comments, I poked around a bit more and found that the affected area would have had a flood plain designation if the Village of Delton had accepted FEMAs designation.  It appears the issue was that more areas would have been included than necessary.  Note that most of the structures on Lake Delton did not suffer any flood damage - they would have incurred additional construction costs & insurance to benefit the 5 home owners who lost their homes.

    Posted by on June 20, 2008 at 1341 hrs




11. All these crazy state laws out there.

    trying to wrest a dollar out of a government official’s hand is like doing the same to a broke a**

    Posted by insurance forum on June 26, 2008 at 1209 hrs