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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Assessors for tax are notoriously different compared to actually FMV. Look at house sales and compare to assessment.
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!
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.
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.
So, you think the judge ruled as he did in order to give the redditors a partisan talking point??
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link