[dragonwriter]

They are based on the current condition, including current constraints on use (zoning, etc.) That isn't restricted to current use (if alternative use was worth more even given current condition, such that the highest paying offer were it sold would be a buyer planning to switch uses, that would be reflected in appraisal.)

[gamblor956]

It turns out we're both wrong at least with respect to the way NY appraises property. https://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/property/learn/howassess.htm

(This is very different from how CA appraises property, and doesn't take into account how counties appraise tangible business property.)

[dragonwriter]

What I said is exactly a consequence of the market method (the first assessment method listed.)

[gamblor956]

Which applies to residential properties in NY, not industrial/commercial properties, which have a "comparable use" method most similar to what I originally said.

[dragonwriter]

The page linked indicates neither that the market approach is used only for residential properties nor that a comparable use method is used for industrial/commercial properties (in fact, it explicitly says that a cost based approach is used for some industrial properties.)

The closest thing to a comparable use method listed on the page is a rental-based method, for which the example given is residential.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but your claim is certainly not supported by the only authority cited in the thread.

[gamblor956]

Well, I am saying you are wrong, and quite specifically saying that the authority cited earlier says that the Cost Method (#2) based on comparable uses is used for industrial sites.

The Cost Method entails: - assessor calculates the cost to replace a structure with a similar one using today's labor and material prices - subtract depreciation - add the market value of the land - used to value industrial, special purpose and utility properties

This is not a rental-based method. #3 (Income-based) is a rental-based method, and is used for residential and commercial non-industrial (i.e., retail or office) sites.

The property mentioned in the NYT article is currently an industrial site and would be governed by method #2: replacing the current factory with a similar facility (i.e., comparable use) based on today's costs.