SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts
COHR 198.62+3.0%3:39 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: robert b furman who wrote (8214)2/14/2020 1:00:45 PM
From: Kirk ©  Read Replies (1) of 26755
 
It sounds like a "one of" type of deal that the law didn't clearly cover and they already have attorneys. They probably should have checked carefully first to see what assessed value Zuckerberg was paying taxes for on their old home as that would or should be the basis for keeping their rate in the new county. You can see why San Mateo County doesn't want to give them the lower rate... so they'll drag their feet and probably have a good case to get the higher taxes. It probably means the windfall the owners go by selling to Zuck will get eaten up by the county via higher property taxes for the next 4o years. Of course they could sell and move to Texas and get a nicer place for much less and pay lower taxes then let someone else pay the taxes.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News