site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   26446 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If Trump thought the assessors value was low the correct thing to do is hire an appraiser, get an actual value, and use that. As best the lawsuit seems to indicate Trump just made numbers up!

No it isn't. You are rarely obligated under the legal system to make yourself worse off voluntarily. Remaining silent is always an option except in civil cases, where you are still allowed to stay silent to preserve your rights in a criminal procedure.

Well valuations are kind of made up and differ significantly. It is an art not a science. My point is that using the assessor as if it was gospel unless proved otherwise is silly. The assessed value for local property tax is almost entirely irrelevant to the value of the land. The only real questions are “what was the value” and “was Trump’s value within the realm of possibility.” The assessor’s value (which isn’t based on a FMV standard) is irrelevant to those questions (outside of taxes affecting the value of the property).

It’s misinforming to a conclusion that becomes a lie because Joe midtwit doesn’t know difference between tax appraisal and a market appraisal. And being that they used it for a legal judgement by people who should know better and have a duty to know better I would say is grounds for disbarment.

These are lawyers and they do have professional standards and the things presented by the judge are just straight up lying.

It’s commonly advised to not fight a low assessment because it reduces your property taxes. No one would assume a corrupt and/or ignorant judge would use that against him decades later.

According to the decision, signed a deed which restricted use of the property for anything other than a social club, including surrendering the right to subdivide the property and build homes thereon. Yet, in its filings, the Trump Organization submitted a valuation that ignored those land use restrictions, and claimed a valuation 2300% higher than the assessed value. And, the only evidence presented to the court to support the higher valuation was a conclusory affidavit from an expert, which, being conclusory, is of essentially no evidentiary value under established Florida law, and indeed established law pretty much everywhere.

So, what basis do you have for saying that only a corrupt or ignorant judge would reach the conclusion he did?

If beach front property assessments in Florida are anything like farmland assessments in the Midwest, such a valuation might not be completely ridiculous. Around me, pretty much all farmland is assessed at $1,500–$2,000 per acre, even though land hasn’t sold for that since the 1990s. One large farm near me recently sold for $20,000 an acre, but the assessed value is only $1,931 an acre. No farmer would (or should) get in trouble for valuing his land at 2023 rates, no matter what the assessor thinks. I’m not saying Trump’s properties are definitely the same, but it doesn’t seem immediately ridiculous to assume they might be.

Ok, but did the Trumps produce evidence that properties in the area often sell for 10x their assessed value? And you are ignoring the reference to the claimed value ignoring the restrictions on development. That is pretty bad, if true.

Regardless, remember the point is not that the judge is correct; it is that the claim that his decision can only be the result of corruption or ignorance does not seem to be consistent with the facts.

Trump shouldnt have to. The state needs overwhelming evidence. Fraud where no bank lost money should lose as a matter of course.

  1. That is already the law. "[T]he burden of a party moving for summary judgment is greater, not less, than that of the plaintiff at the trial. The plaintiff may prevail on the basis of a mere preponderance of the evidence. However, the party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively that no material issues remain for trial." Visingardi v. Tirone, 193 So. 2d 601 (FL Supreme Court 1966). Which was my point: It is quite easy to defeat a summary judgment motion.
  2. You are conflating issues. Whether Mar A Lago was overvalued is not the same as whether the state was entitled to summary judgment, because there was evidence that numerous other properties had been overvalued as well.

I’m typing this on my phone, so I’m not going to mess with links.

First, the county assessor lists Mar a Lago’s market value as $37 million. If it’s true that the judge valued it at $17–25 million, there’s already a major discrepancy. It’s worth noting that Trump paid $12 million for it in 1995, equivalent to $24.3 million today. For the property to be only worth $25 million, the judge has to assume that property values haven’t risen faster than inflation, which seems awfully dubious from where I sit. He also has to assume that the county assessor overvalued the property by 1.5–2.2 times its actual worth, which is interesting given his complaint that Trump has been overvaluing his property. Perhaps he felt the best way to compensate for Trump’s overvaluation was to opt for a noticeable undervaluation?

Secondly, some neighboring properties’ asking and sale prices are instructive. 168 King Rd. (4,874 sq. ft., not ocean-front) just sold for $14 million, against an assessed value of $4.1 million (and a market value of $8.4 million; I’m not clear what the difference between the two is). Another nearby property (500 Regents Park Rd—6,488 sq. ft., ocean-front) is listed for sale at $40 million, against an assessed value of $6.4 million ($12 million market value).

Mar-a-Lago’s main building, by contrast, is 37,414 sq. ft. The property also contains five more buildings, two pools, and five tennis courts, to say nothing of the land. That it’s all worth a measly $17–25 million doesn’t pass the smell test.

Wealth inequality has increased vastly more than inflation and things like Palm Beach estates are limited in supply and the people who buy they have vastly more wealth.

First, the county assessor lists Mar a Lago’s market value as $37 million. If it’s true that the judge valued it at $17–25 million, there’s already a major discrepancy.

The judgement takes its numbers from the county assessor:

From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a - Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million.

Possibly you're comparing the current valuation to the valuation in the relevant periods?

I also don't think you can reasonably use neighbouring properties prices as a guide to Mar-a-Lago's value when Mar-a-Lago has very different land use restrictions applied to it.

I know you aren’t from the states so you likely don’t have this local knowledge. Property tax values are untethered from actual FMV. The system isn’t designed to determine the real value of property. If you look at real estate, it is often sold well above the assessed property tax value. Indeed in many places even after a sale establishes fmv the property taxes don’t reset the valuation.

Also, land use certainly affects valuation. If Trump tried to sell MAL what do you think he’d get?

I don't have any real idea what it's actually worth. I was initially sceptical of this assertion that property tax values are different from actual values, but it seems legit, so - weird way to run a country, but ok.

But since we're abandoning that as an anchor, we don't have any actual numbers to work with. There doesn't seem to be an actual fair market value appraisal included in any of the court documents. So what we have is a highly unusual property with highly unusual use restrictions. It's very difficult to know what it's actually worth.

Fortunately, I don't think it's necessary to generate an accurate valuation to be able to determine that Trump's valuation was fraudulent. The fact that the 1) use restrictions exist, 2) they are inevitably going to impact the value significantly, and 3) that Trump's valuations assumed they did not exist is enough to satisfy both the judge and myself that he did the wrong thing.

More comments

The issue is not "is the judge's valuation correct?" (In part because the judge did not make a factual finding; that does not happen on a motion for summary judgment) It is whether the judge's finding that the undisputed facts show that the value claimed by Trump was higher than the actual value is so unreasonable that it can only be the product of corruption or stupidity.

And, the problem with your discussion of the amount the Mar A Lago "should" have appreciated, is that, as the court emphasizes, subsequent to Trump's purchase, substantial land use limitations were attached to Mar A Lago. Which obviously is going to reduce the value of the property. Note also that the decision says that from 2011 to 2021, the assessed value of the property ranged between $18 million and $27 million, which is indeed substantially more than inflation (the BLS inflation calculator tells me that $18 million in Jan of 2011 was equivalent to just under $23 million in Dec of 2021)

Edit: Note also that Trump's attorneys were free to submit evidence that the County's assessment was inaccurate. Did they? There is no evidence that they did.

And while 500 Regents Park Rd might be listed at $40 million, Zillow tells me that it sold in March of 2020 for $7.5 million, compared to its assessed value of at the time of $3.2 million. And that is the relevant time period: The time when Trump et al filed documents claiming what Mar A Lago was worth (again, the decision says that the time period in question was 2011-2021).

On the Palm Beach property I’m knowledgeable to yes the result is corruption or ignorance or just trying to give the redditors a partisan talking point. There isn’t even plausible deniability here.

Even if Trump can’t subdivide it’s certainly worth more than sfh with 2 ocean front acres which are trading 200 million plus. The family buying that plot would buy Mar for 200 and just have 15 extra acres.

You might not be able to get the full value of 20 acres which is probably over a billion but it’s certainly worth more than the highest sfh in the neighborhood which gives a lower bound of probably 250 million.

Another user said he bought it for $12 million. That was in 1985. Per the West Palm Beach home price index the value in 2021 would be expected to be about $57 million. Yet he claimed it was worth more than $600 million at the time. A judge who infers therefrom that he was lying is not acting unreasonably. Even if he turns out to be mistaken.

just trying to give the redditors a partisan talking point

So, you think the judge ruled as he did in order to give the redditors a partisan talking point??

Another user said he bought it for $12 million. That was in 1985.

Per this article, he bought it for $5 million.

That’s not Palm Beach especially the good area or waterfront of which there is very limited supply.

Yes I do believe the judge did this for Reddit talking points.

That’s not Palm Beach especially the good area or waterfront of which there is very limited supply.

And it would have been very easy for Trump, et al, to look at property records in the area and show that prices indeed increased fifty-fold from 1985 to 2021. Did they do so? There is no evidence of that. And if they didn't, then what is the basis for claiming that the court decision is meritless?

Yes I do believe the judge did this for Reddit talking points.

Thank you. That is very valuable information.

More comments

Those homes don't have land use restrictions that they can only be used as social clubs.

Trump relied on the testimony of the most relevant possible expert, a powerbroker in Palm Beach whose last deal involved Tommy Hilfiger’s property and who represented in one of the largest sales in recent Palm Beach history. He listed the specific features which, in his expert testimony, would lead the property to be sold at north of one billion dollars, namely that is an “exclusive family compound” and “in the most desirable section of Palm Beach”.

You are misinterpreting his statement as being conclusory. Why? The expert's ultimate assertion is not “speculative”, it is based on his experience and assessment of the features of the property. It is not “unsupported by any evidentiary foundation”, he specifies the exact evidentiary foundation.

No, it was the court that said it was conclusory, not me. And, are you sure you are familiar with the law on what constitutes a conclusory expert opinion under Florida law? Because the fact that you consider the identity of the expert relevant to that question suggests that you might not be.

Most importantly, note that the issue now is precisely that: Was the expert's opinion sufficiently nonconclusory to be entitled to weight under Florida law? I would think you would be sufficiently uncertain of the answer thereto to be a little less sure that the decision must be the product of corruption or incompetence.

If any such statement was made in evidence a MSJ is improper because that creates a legitimate question of material fact. The judge is in a tails he loses heads trump wins situation if ever a nonbiased person reviews his order.

If any what statement is made? Do you mean that, if the expert's opinion was supported by evidence, rather than being wholly conclusory? Yes, if so, the court erred in disregarding the opinion. However:

  1. Is there any reason to think that is true?
  2. That does not mean the summary judgment was improper unless the other undisputed facts re the other properties are insufficient to support the summary judgment, which seems unlikely, since there were several others properties, the values of which seem to have been misrepresented.

Even if its 99.99% conclusion and only supported with threadbare facts, the MSJ would lose. A MSJ is where you win even when you accept the other side's facts.

  1. As I said, "Do you mean that, if the expert's opinion was supported by evidence, rather than being wholly conclusory? Yes, if so, the court erred in disregarding the opinion."

  2. However, as I noted, since the decision was based on misrepresentations re several properties, not just Mar A Lago, the mere fact that the affidavit was supported by threadbare facts does not mean that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, let alone that only a corrupt or stupid judge would have granted it.

True, but an independent appraisal isn't something that's going to be used as the basis to change the assessment. While their jobs are similar, assessors and appraisers don't look at exactly the same things, and an appraisal isn't even something the assessor's office will even know about.

Didn’t the Judge cite an assessor’s valuation?

Yes, because that's what's publicly available. An appraiser's valuation isn't public except for in unusual circumstances (like the property is subject to litigation, as in this case), and even then the values are almost always outdated by that point.

They cited a tax value. That is not the same thing as an assessed value for market value. It’s a made up number they use for calculating taxes. And using it is an active attempt to deceive.

@coffee_enjoyer To be clear, an assessed value is one used for tax purposes. An appraised value is one used for market purposes, including determining collateral value.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats