We Build the Wall - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org

The 638 acres (2.58 km2) of land [We Build the Wall] built on is part of farmland that belongs to Neuhaus and Sons, and the wall added over $20 million in taxable land improvement, increasing the tax burden by 75 times. In January 2020, Fisher Industries started a lease-purchase agreement with Neuhaus and Sons for the land under the wall, but had not completed the ownership transfer by their court hearing on December 12, 2020, citing a problematic land survey by Fisher. Fisher’s attorney, Mark Courtois, was hopeful the US government would become owners of both the wall and land. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Public Affairs Officer Thomas Gresback said that the wall was privately paid for and on private property, and CBP does not have anything to do with the project. CBP is constructing its RGV-03 project wall outside the floodplain 0.3 miles (0.48 km) away.[66] As of July 2021, the property had been reassessed at 100 times its original value, and Fisher was hoping to sell a 3-mile section of wall (4.8 km) that had cost $30 million to build.[67]

    • mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      23 hours ago

      What they’re saying is this:

      1. That land used to have nothin much on it, so it was cheap land, and the property taxes were low.
      2. 30 million was spent on building the private wall. I don’t think this money came from the land owner. (This is the crowd funded Trump Wall, right?)
      3. With the fancy new wall on it, the property is now appraised at around 20 million (or maybe whatever it was plus 20 million). Whether it’s 75 times or 100 times what it was before is not super important. The point is it went from not much to quite a bit.
      4. Property taxes went up in accordance with the new valuation.
      5. Property owner is probably not wealthy enough to pay the taxes, so big picture he can’t continue to own the property.
      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
        2·
        23 hours ago

        i understand that, but that’s what’s already in the article i posted, and i don’t see how that’s what they’re saying from something about what increasing about a percentage means. i also understand that it’s not important, but i don’t like being confused as i have a(n ir)rational fear of dementia

        • bobburger@fedia.io
          2·
          22 hours ago

          I wouldn’t worry about it, you’re absolutely correct that the property value increase and the tax burden increase are not linear at all. The person who attempted to correct you is pretty notorious for being aggressively wrong.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
      154·
      1 day ago

      It’s not …

      100x means it’s 100 times as much, you add two zeros to the last number.

      Did you think the “75 times” also meant it increased by 75%? Because that’s not what it means either.

      Like if it was $100 and went up 75 times the original amount, and the new amount would be $7500. To go up 100 times the original it would be $10,000

      • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
        6·
        1 day ago

        What you quoted says the property was assessed at 100x its original value. The total taxes owed is a different number than the assessed value.

        In Texas we have a variety of taxing entities that may overlap a property, city, county, school district, community college district, hospital district, municipal utility districts, etc. Each adopt different tax rates and have defined percentages of valuations they’re allowed to tax. Point being, taxes owed do not scale linearly with assessed property valuations.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
          43·
          1 day ago

          by more than 7,500%”, so I trust that the journalists did their journaling.

          The “%” sign adds two zeros…

          So 75x is the same as 7500%

          I’m not trying to argue I’m trying to help you. If you don’t want help. That’s cool, I can stop trying.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
            4·
            23 hours ago

            I think we have a misunderstanding here, but I don’t know where. Here’s my impression of the conversation:

            1. You said the property tax actually was 100x.
            2. I said that’s 100x the land value; the tax rate isn’t necessarily 100% of the land value. Basically what BassTurd said.
            3. You said even if it was a different percentage, it increases linearly. (You then said something about increasing by 75x isn’t the same as becoming 75 times the original. To that I’ll say 1+75≠100 either.)
            4. I said it’s probably a bracket, so it probably doesn’t increase linearly, hence about 25x/26x of the value didn’t linear it. I do not understand the next reply.