Santa Clara County Property Values Increase

Almost half a million assessment notices went out to Santa Clara County property owners today, and following three years of minimal or negative growth in assessed property values, the county reports its first solid increase since 2008.

Overall, total net assessed value of all real business and personal property values increased by 3.25 percent to $308.8 billion.

Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone said in a news release that the graph of the county’s growth looks like a check mark, a decline followed by a dramatic upslope, instead of the normal economic curves.

The growth is due to a combination of factors, including changes in ownership, exemptions, reductions when market values fall below the assessed values (Prop 8), new construction and the California Consumer Price Index. This growth was also driven by improvements in the commercial and industrial sector and a modest increase in property values.

However, not all areas of the county experienced the same growth. Mountain View and Cupertino grew 6.6 percent and 6.3 percent, while Gilroy declined .4 percent. San Jose saw a modest increase of 1.36 percent. There were 476,000 assessments sent out in total.

These assessed values are used to create the annual property tax bills that owners will receive in September. Money generated through property tax is used to support public schools and local governments.

Click to see the Santa Clara County Property Value Report for 2012.

21 Comments

  1. Let’s see the 10 year between 2001 and present.

    Also if you look at the 2 years going down, the total decrease in value was 2.61%.  Total increase value was 4.13% (and it’s projected since 2013 isn’t over yet) 

    4.13%
    -2.61%
    ———-
    1.5% increase over 4 years?

    Even compounding the increase over the duration of my 30 year loan, that’s still way less than what earlier generations enjoyed in terms of terms of property value in Santa Clara County. 

    The cop I bought my house from almost tripled his investment over the course of 15 years in this house.  At this overall rate, I’m going to be lucky to get a 1/3rd value over what I paid at the end of my loan.

  2. BS, Larry Stone, funny how this comes after his Q @ A.  I requested numerous times to have property assessed, but got run around when all of the county was going down.

    We are all getting @@##$%% by this.  But he is all about bringing the A’S to SJ which will never happen.

  3. Oh, baloney.

    Real property values didn’t go up.

    It’s just the expected, inevitible effect off oceans of federal reserve printing machine stimulus dollars shrinking the dollar denominated measuring stick.

    The REAL headline is:

    “Obama’s Crackpot Keyesian Economic Policies Stop Real Growth”

    “Roaring Inflation Is Back and Headed for the Stratosphere”

    • Lou, studies such as this adjust for inflation. Failing to consider inflation is a mistake that even economics students rarely make, because it is such an common consideration.

      • > Overall, total net assessed value of all real business and personal property values increased by 3.25 percent to $308.8 billion.

        Q. 308.8 billion what?

        A. 308.8 billion federal reserve notes.

        If you measure property values in Weimar Republic marks or Argentine pesos, I’ll bet property values went through the stratosphere and we’re all trillionaires and Emperors or President for Life.

        But, if you measure property values in ounces of gold, did “real business and personal property values” increase?

        By the way, it’s known everywhere in the cosmos except inside the Obama bubble that the the CPI, the government’s index of inflation, EXCLUDES the prices of energy and food.

        So, even though gas went from $1.90 to $4.25 a gallon under Obama’s glorious reign, the government doesn’t see anything inflationary.

        The government thinks we’re a bunch of dim-witted lunkheads when it comes to recognizing inflation. 

        They may be right about you and Larry Stone.

        • I might add, the only reason why gas was so cheap when Obama took office was because the economy had almost completely collapsed. On July 17, 2008, a gallon of regular rose just above $4.11. Five months later, it was $1.62.

        • What grounds do you have to make an accusation like that? It seems to me that you decide who to support based on partisanship BEFORE you see the evidence, and when faced with evidence to the contrary you accuse the opponent of lying. Anyone with half of a brain can see that’s a cop-out.

  4. Yep, it’s just suburban growth, not the smart downtown growth.  Nice going, Silicon Valley people!  It’s just perpetuation the sterile, boredom of this valley with no exciting urban culture-LA style growth with no vibrant downtown and only no beach, which is the case here.

  5. To note: gas prices increased 275 percent under George W. Bush, from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008. The price of gas came back down to $1.90 at the end of Mr. Bush’s term only because the economy collapsed under his leadership.

    • > gas prices increased 275 percent under George W. Bush, from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008. The price of gas came back down to $1.90 at the end of Mr. Bush’s term only because the economy collapsed under his leadership.

      I was told that gas went up to $4.40 per gallon under Bush because he was just trying to make his oil buddies rich.

      Apparently, President Obungle must be trying to make Bush’s oil buddies rich, too.

      One nice thing about the Bush era, solar energy was cheap.  So far in the Obama era, solar energy has cost us a billion dollars in subsidies to Obama cronies AND WE DIDN’T GET ANY CHEAP SOLAR ENERGY AND WE DIDN’T END OUR DEPENDENCY ON FOSSIL FUELS!

        • “Because they have that Constitutional right.”
          That’s not why, that’s how; you’re completely ignoring my point and accusing me of not understanding “constitutional rights” despite the fact that I said nothing about the constitutionality of campaign contributions. I merely made a point that you ignored; that the view of Obama as a sell-out to the oil industry is in odds with the fact that the oil industry is trying to unseat him.

        • > If Obama was really pandering to the oil industry, why would they be funding his opponent?

          Oh, right.

          When a leftist, big government politician buys you or your industry with government money, you’re supposed to stay bought.

          Maybe even the “oil industry” has a higher concept of the public good than Obama’s tawdry coin operated politics.

        • If you think that oil companies spend millions of dollars to influence public policy because they posses a “higher concept of public good”, you’re dead wrong. Oil companies influence politics because they want a candidate sympathetic towards them.

        • Lou S, your use of the term “moonbat” reeks of gamey buttocks and is indicative that you are one of Chuckle’s psychophants.

  6. > If you think that oil companies spend millions of dollars to influence public policy because they posses a “higher concept of public good”, you’re dead wrong.

    And of course, Obama spends millions of dollars to influence public policy because he’s just a nice guy with a good idea who cares about the children. Right?

    At least the oil companies identify the money they are donating.

    Much of Obama’s money seems to come from overseas contributions that are just too darn hard to track.

    And, because Obama IS such a nice guy, the moonbats wouldn’t even expect him to track his overseas contributions.  It might be interpreted has doubting his integrity and honesty.

    • “And of course, Obama spends millions of dollars to influence public policy because he’s just a nice guy with a good idea who cares about the children. Right?”
      First of all, Obama’s NOT spending millions of dollars like the oil companies are- he only made $789,674 in 2011. If you’re referring to his campaign contributions, then I think it’s a pretty silly jump in logic to say, “Okay, the oil companies are spending millions of dollars to support Mitt Romney because he’ll sell out to them- but Obama accepts campaign contributions, as well!” Basically, what you’re saying is spending money to run for President automatically makes you suspect.

      Second, if your criticism of Obama is that he, like the oil companies, is concerned with nothing but producing a profit, then what does that make Romney? The guy shut destroyed businesses and jobs in order to reap a profit from them. If you want to take about shady overseas money, let’s talk about Romney’s Swiss bank account or his money in the Cayman Islands.