[medvezhenok]

I picked a random house in Austin, TX.

In 2013: Land value $154K, House value: $100K. Total assessed: $254K.

Same house in 2019: Land value: $312K. House value: $117K. Total assessed: $430K.

On the market now for $850K.

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/5015-Avenu...

[phpisthebest]

I can play this game to, it does not prove you assertion, provide a data sours that should the majority of urban locations are land value heavy

Random Property in Philadelphia [1]

Assessed Value 2023: 257300 / land: 51460 - Structures: 205840

Assessed Value 2015: 186800 / land: 90300 - structures: 96500

So in Philly land DROPPED in value, Structures increased

In Austin they appear to claim Structures s have not increased in value at all in 10 years (very odd) and the 100% of the increase in the value of the land

I bet if I dig into local tax laws I will find some justifications for both valuations methods (meaning the local taxing authorities are manipulating the values for maximum tax revenue)

[1] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/9320-Andov...

[novok]

Just think a bit deeper about it. If you can get an equivalent sqft house built to similar cost of materials of a similar age and similar condition, why would that house be 1/3rd the price in one spot? The land and the property tax rate is the difference.

[phpisthebest]

I understand that some area have massively increased land prices

That is not the discussion, the claim I was responding to said that the MAJORITY of urban homes the value of the home is made up by the value of the land, not the home

I can see that in some very select regions of the nation, but through not the midwest that for sure should not be the case, and I am suspect that the MAJORITY of the nation is that way

Thus my asking for a SOURCE for the claim that was made as my experience differs

So far all have a gotten was 2 cherry picked anecdotes to prove the claim with no actual data backing it, as such i will simply assume the statement is false