advertising
Link to jump to start of content The Seattle Times Company Jobs Autos Homes Rentals NWsource Classifieds seattletimes.com
The Seattle Times Real Estate
Traffic | Weather | Your account Movies | Restaurants | Today's events

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

E-mail article     Print view

Home Forum

Taxing rate equal for houses and condos, despite appearance

Seattle Times staff reporter

Q: I'm very concerned about the inequalities of our state's property-tax system. What are the differences in what the average individual homeowner pays compared to what condo owners or apartment owners pay?

A: This is a situation where the truth appears deceptive.

There can be wide variations in how much property owners are taxed in various cities, King County Assessor Scott Noble says. For example, there's a 20 percent spread in property owners' tax rates within Newcastle, a 35 percent spread within Kent and a 31 percent spread in Bellevue. From this it would appear that inequities exist.

But Noble says that's not true. Nor is it true that the owners of single-family homes pay property taxes at a different rate than those who own condos or apartment buildings.

"The state property-tax levy rate will be the same for all property owners," he said. "It's the uniformity requirement in the state constitution. You treat everyone the same for valuation."

The differences are a result of the public will and taxing districts. Voter approval of various measures — school levies and hospitals bonds, for example — account for about 40 percent of a property owner's tax bill.

Then each county can have more than 100 taxing districts related to its community services — water districts, school districts, fire districts, etc. — and each will want its slice of the property-tax pie.

That's why what a property owner pays "depends on where they live — there are different rates for different parts of the county," Noble said.

And because taxing districts can overlap, King County alone has 268 total property-tax levy rates.

Q: Can the owners of a very large apartment complex turn tenants out so they can remodel it section by section? What are a tenant's rights in this situation?

advertising
A: As long as a lease is in effect, an owner cannot force a tenant to leave so the complex can be remodeled, and that's true statewide, says Michele Thomas, tenant organizer of the nonprofit Tenants Union of Washington State.

However, an owner lawfully can ask a tenant to leave who either had no lease or who's staying on after a lease has expired. All the landlord needs to do in either case is give proper notice. No reason need be given — except in Seattle, which has a Just Cause Ordinance.

This Seattle-only ordinance allows landlords to terminate a tenancy for any of 11 reasons. Among them: The owner is planning major reconstruction or rehabilitation, which cannot be done with the tenants in place. Uprooted tenants have the right of first refusal to reoccupy the refurbished unit, "but it doesn't have to be at the same rent," Thomas said.

Displaced low-income Seattle tenants thus are entitled to relocation assistance. So are tenants anywhere who are forced to move because a governmental agency has condemned the building and ordered the owner to correct problems before it can be inhabited again. Tenants turned out of tax-subsidized buildings also may have protections.

It's not unheard of for landlords to simply work around tenants instead of evicting them. That can be unpleasant, and there's not a lot tenants can do as long as the landlord has obtained required permits and is taking proper safety precautions.

Tenants who feel inconvenienced "could ask for $100 off their rent for every month they're affected by the work," Thomas said.

"We've seen landlords do that," Thomas said. "Smart landlords would offer some kind of reimbursement to keep tenants happy during that time."

For more on tenant rights, check out the Tenants Union Web site: www.tenantsunion.org.

Q: The listing for our new town house said it was 1,300 square feet. But our appraiser measured it as only 980 square feet. The listing agent then told us that was because in new homes, the garage and patio are included in the measurement. Is this true and ethical?

A: Carol Peisley, president of Seattle chapter of the Appraisal Institute, says square footage is commonly understood to be based on above-grade, finished, heated space. So not only is the garage out, but "I've never heard of a patio being included in a measurement," said Peisley, president of Sound Valuations in Kent.

There is one area, however, where real-estate companies and appraisers differ on square-footage calculations, and that's on daylight basements, finished or not.

Real-estate firms commonly include this space in the footage; appraisers don't include it in their property comparisons.

If your town house has a daylight basement, that could account for the discrepancy between what the real-estate listing said and your appraiser found.

Now you may be wondering whether you paid too much for your condo. Peisley says you probably didn't if there are other, same-sized town houses in your development and they sold for about the same amount. If the situation is otherwise, you can contact a real-estate attorney to explore your options.

Home Forum answers readers' real-estate questions. Send questions to Home Forum, Seattle Times, P.O. Box 1845, Seattle, WA 98111, or call 206-464-8510 to leave a question on a recorded line. The e-mail address is erhodes@seattletimes.com. Sorry, no personal replies. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Marketplace

advertising

glossLuxe
The Bellevue-based makeup line is versatile, vegan and cruelty-free.

More shopping