MikeBolen.com

As a commercial investment real estate broker based in Napa, I want to help my clients save money on their real estate holdings. Please read the following directly from the Napa county property tax assessor concerning a property tax review request:

“In my capacity as Assessor-Recorder-Clerk I want to provide as much information to the public as possible regarding property tax, document recording and other related issues. An informed public is the key to good customer service and to insuring that every property owner and resident receives fair and prompt treatment. Some of the duties of the department include property tax assessment and parcel map maintenance.”

-John Tuteur, Napa County Assessor, jtuteur@co.napa.ca.us (707) 253-4459

To find the necessary documentation to request a review of you property taxes, please go to the following link and follow the instructions below:

http://www.co.napa.ca.us
In the search tab type in Assessment Review Request
Click on #2 on the list
 OR
Top right click on Government
Left side click on Department/ Districts
Click on Assessor
Click on Documents/ Forms
Assessment Review Request

Now is the time to invest in Napa Valley real estate.
If you are seeking a hotel, multifamily, office or retail
real estate investment or even a ultra luxury home priced
over $4,000,000 you should meet with my team and I for a
private consultation. My office is located on 1st and Main
on the busiest corner in Napa Valley. Here at the RE/MAX
Napa Valley office RE/MAX Cornerstone my team specializes
in off market hard to find investment real estate. Contact
me, Mike Bolen at Mike@MikeBolen.com or 707-254-9999.

When the liberal wing of the supreme court ruled in Kelo vs. City of New London that local government may take private property for new private economic development our court reaffirmed the American ideal that together we achieve more than we can separately. Eminent Domain is the power of government to take land from an owner without his consent with just compensation and sufficient notice. It is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the US constitution that specifically prohibits the taking of property for public use without just cause. A few reasons in favor of eminent domain:

1. Redevelopment of the urban core prevents suburban sprawl
2. Increased tax base from new development projects creates jobs, lowers the tax burden on private homeowners and produces more jobs
3. Allows local government to create safe affordable housing zones
4. Large deteriorated vacant buildings and lands can be redeveloped for the common good and spur economic activity

Many of the great projects built by government would have been stopped were it not for eminent domain. Railroads, superhighways, public parks, agriculture preserves, etc. could be stopped by a single land owner. We cannot afford to allow a single person veto power over such projects. In the future this will be increasingly important as useful land close to our cities becomes scarce.

Property rights proponents claim that the biggest corporations and developers will most often win. If government works the way our founders designed it takes a balanced perspective from public hearings. Then big corporations will only win when the facts are compelling and on their side. As shown with Angwin bubble debate the big company/institution doesn’t always win. The community won when it saw that a plan would have more negatives for the community. Government can work and as such should be given the power to grow.

Sometimes a Wal-Mart, new hotel, shopping center, jail or road is a good use for a condemned piece of property. People need cheap goods, and they also need jobs. In an area of urban blight, a Wal-Mart is a vast improvement to the local landscape. The same thing might be said about a Wal-Mart in a rural area that once was a farm. The reverse is true as well government could condemn a Wal-Mart to create a vineyard to better protect open space. A private housing development might be the solution to replacing run down crime infested privately owned housing.

Ultimately, we need smart government that listens to public input and fosters smart projects where they are needed. Government must assist those who are dislocated by such change in finding equivalent housing, providing more than simply just compensation and other necessities such as counseling, transportation, and moving expenses. If government works to promote smart growth and works for the people we all win.

I urge you to vote NO on proposition 98 and NO on proposition 99.

After only two hours of deliberation yesterday, the jury unanimously vindicated a buyer’s agent accused by his clients of failing to disclose that two other homes in the neighborhood sold for less than what they paid. As a trial court case, this decision in Ummel v. Little is binding on the parties to the case, but has no binding authority for other cases. Moreover, the buyers may file an appeal.

This case involved a couple who bought a home in a coastal Carlsbad community in 2005 for $1.2 million. They regretted their purchase when they discovered that two other homes sold for about $150,000 less than theirs. They sued their real estate agent for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. Their lawsuit grabbed national attention, given the recent downturn in the real estate market.

At the trial, the agent’s attorney argued that there were valid reasons these two other properties sold for less. One home, for example, had a lap pool which was unappealing to many buyers, and the sellers wanted to rent back the home for two years.

Bottom line. Do your own property investigation and due dilligence. No two properties are alike even the same model on the same street. Condition, lot location, traffic pattern, color, tenants, lease terms, debt, etc. Many many things effect value, caveat emptor!