|Re: flip tax||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)|
|Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:19:34 -0800 (PST)|
On Feb 13, 2007, at 12:09 AM, David Heimann wrote:
was only after the proponent was willing to call it a "transfer fee" thatit began its slow tortuous road to adoption.
"Transfer fee" is the standard name for this.And the argument for it in cohousing is even greater than in a conventional condominium because
1. Any transfer of ownership is a burden to the community. It makes work. As much as we have gotten wonderful people in move-ins it is work for us to orient them, educate them, get them up to speed, and help them get settled. It is not easy.
2. Because the larger community is so involved in creating and supporting property values, it seems only reasonable that they should share in the gains.
One thing I liked in the proposals that went by was basing the fee on the difference between the purchase price and the sale price less improvements. A transfer fee based on sale price would not be equal, I don't think, in our community. Property values have risen such that the units of people who moved in seven years ago have tripled but those of people who moved in two years ago, paying the doubled or tripled value already have not increased. So a 3% fee for them would be a significant problem unless it was based on the difference between purchase and sales price less improvements.
We don't have such a fee and it would take probably 2 years to get consensus on it but some of those who have moved have voluntarily made significant donations to the capital improvements fund.
Sharon ----- Sharon Villines Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC http://www.takomavillage.org
- Re: flip tax, (continued)
Re: flip tax Oliveau, February 13 2007
- Re: flip tax Raines Cohen, February 13 2007
- Re: flip tax Oliveau, February 13 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.