The Observation Deck

Dee Martinez wrote:Its a little trickier when a property has been in the same hands for a while. In that case property owners can and do challenge the assessments. These re-assessments tend to be more incremental.

Your post is a fair, reasonable and rational assessment of the problems with commercial property assessment.

However, I am not in a reasonable mood.

Many commercial and apartment buildings in Lakewood have gone decades without improvements. I have been in many and have been appalled at what I saw.

And yet, when an opportunity arises for a development that will improve the quality of life for the people who live here the owners of that neglected property suddenly discover that that piece of garbage they own is their pride and joy!

Bill Call wrote:

Dee Martinez wrote:Its a little trickier when a property has been in the same hands for a while. In that case property owners can and do challenge the assessments. These re-assessments tend to be more incremental.

Your post is a fair, reasonable and rational assessment of the problems with commercial property assessment.

However, I am not in a reasonable mood.

Many commercial and apartment buildings in Lakewood have gone decades without improvements. I have been in many and have been appalled at what I saw.

And yet, when an opportunity arises for a development that will improve the quality of life for the people who live here the owners of that neglected property suddenly discover that that piece of garbage they own is their pride and joy!

Well, of course, your right.

The whole point is to present the property value as high as you can for a prospective buyer but as low as you can for the taxman. If you can keep your property assessment at 1 mil but sell it for 5 mil , thats the kind of thing that puts a Porsche in your driveway.

Thats just "bidness" as Molly Ivins used to say and it will never change no matter what city state or universe you live in.

To clarify for Kevin, I was talking about both fields. Initially my focus was on the High School's north lot- which I think Jeff was responding to when I posted the recommendation about the north field at Lakewood Park. I assumed it was just a delayed slap and since he put a winky face tried to take it in stride.
Over the past 3 years, the field that is in the northwest corner of Lakewood Park in front of the Kiwannis pavillion has not been used by any of the Co-ed leagues that I know of, maybe it's used for adult or youth leagues. As far as creating a solution to the possible elimination of Foxx field this location seems to make the most sense. While claims are made that Foxx/Kaufman isn't utilized enough, it's rare to see Lakewood park packed to the gills. For the rec to be able to take advantage of having a field which overlooks the lake would be a great selling point. While they're at it, it would be great if they could figure out a way to offer sand volleyball on the Northeast corner of the park but that's another battle.

Going back, way back to when I first heard this suggestion which was before there was a potential developer, my concern was losing fields and/or green space. At that time Harding's diamond was gone. Then throughout the discussion about losing Foxx it was said that Harding would return but LHS north parking lot's field would be gone. Now, what I'm not getting in this is what the plan are of the Board of Education/Rec Dept and the City (since these are the two controlling powers of this issue). Seems to me that if there wasn't so much uncertainty and this add/delete discussion going on that it would ease some anxiety. Maybe it's a short period of flux being that there's a Main Street Program and a Youth Master Plan program both running consecutively and ideas are being presented as likely outcomes. What I'd like to see is something that we can count on. I've been doing more to keep up than what I would consider the average resident and frankly it has done nothing but lower my confidence in those who are in charge.