Perhaps property values should be based on senority


In his Nov. 15 letter, Tim Verschuyl notes how property assessments are so radically subject to opinionated argument. It’s not a new or isolated problem. California dealt with it by adopting their famous — or infamous —“Proposition 13” that among other things froze assessments at their purchase price.

This, of course, takes any argument out of assessed values, but it sure elicited dire predictions of calamity and chaos from frightened officials from other states. Nevertheless the “evil legislation” withstood court challenges all the way to the nation’s Supreme Court and to date has been in place for almost 40 years without California falling into the ocean as naysayers insisted would happen.

Oak Harbor’s Boyer property scandal is a valid case in point. It seems that just a few years ago the well connected Mr. Boyer sold acreage to a government consortium for some five times the perennial assessed value. How on earth did that happen? But of course that has long been swept under the rug.

So except for inheritances, gifts, or new construction, why not let purchase price be the set assessed value and get rid of humbug property reassessing altogether? It sure would end disagreements and produce some other sensible benefits too.

Some county assessors, Jefferson County for one, have even argued for this change.

One benefit would be providing a seniority edge for our longtime residents who bought at more sensible prices. Heck, they are our pioneers anyway.

“Unfair to newcomers” you say?

Well aren’t newcomers the ones causing government cost increases?

Why should those who maintain their property — to the benefit of the whole neighborhood — be penalized by assessment increases?

Another thing: as far as government is concerned, unlike California’s Proposition 13, this approach is completely revenue neutral. Who wants to argue against that?

Just think of the savings to taxpayers when the cost of everlasting property reassessments is abolished?

It sounds like a win-win situation for everyone– except maybe the real estate industry. Who knows, it could be a selling point for them too.

Al Williams

Oak Harbor

More in Letters to the Editor

Letter: Planning commissioner said what she believes

Editor, Island County Planning Commission met last week. Commissioner Rick Hannold’s new… Continue reading

Letter: Life isn’t free; it’s time for community to teach that

Editor, Suppose your car was giving you trouble. You put it in… Continue reading

Letter: Moratorium on vacation rentals is ‘anti-tourist’

Editor, I am not sure if anyone else is aware of this,… Continue reading

Letter: Should work toward solutions to local crisis

Editor, It doesn’t take much time for news to travel. My phone… Continue reading

Letter: Central Whidbey road will not harm wildlife

Editor, Regarding the letter claiming that the Houston/Race connector road would “interfere… Continue reading

Letter: The new rule on carts is the wrong approach

Editor, Our city leaders have done it again. They seem to prefer… Continue reading

Letter: Base commander’s Sound Off ‘was a dud’

Editor, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Commander Capt. Moore’s recent Sound Off… Continue reading

Letter: Speak up, speak out against administration

Editor, I truly do not know how much more our democracy can… Continue reading

Letter: Hospital’s commissioners kowtow to administration

Editor, Why did WhidbeyHeath Medical Center change its name? Did they spend… Continue reading

Letter: It’s customers who will pay the price for new law

Editor, Well, Saturday’s front page of the Whidbey News-Times once again showed… Continue reading

Letter: Don’t eliminate all of island’s green spaces

Editor, Trees and green spaces are beneficial to human beings for many… Continue reading

New connector is just good common sense

Editor, Thank you for supporting a connector road between Houston and Race… Continue reading