I was reading “Whitehall property value tumbles; owner requests rezoning” (Sept. 26 and TribLIVE.com) to my husband. In the article, the owners, Chuck and Patty Hosler, are having problems selling the property, and the Allegheny County reassessment value is not helping matters.
I found it outrageous that a property that was purchased in 2009 for $72,000 has recently been reassessed at $870,000, although, after appeals, it dropped several times to $243,000.
As I discussed this article with my husband and commented that I wonder what taxes on an $870,000 property are, my husband naively replied that someone would pay taxes on what he actually paid for the property.
One would think that would be the fairest, most accurate way to assess property valuation. Does Allegheny County use such information to adjust fair market value?
Imagine, if you will, being the Hoslers when they opened the letter detailing that $870,000 county reassessment.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Better stores needed
- Superstition’s role
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Making it special
- The email cleanup
- Pushing witchcraft
- Wake up, voters