3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is interesting to see how many of the suburban cities are changing their master plan to include the option for higher density housing closer to the town center. I know Mason just updated their plan to encourage higher density housing near the town center to encourage a walkable community. I wonder if this will blunt some of the growth in cities in Ohio when you create a similar product out in the burbs. WIth remote work, there is less of a need to be close to the urban core for jobs.

 

The one thing Cleveland has going for it is a lot of suburban communities are so anti-change, they won't be able to compete, especially if Cleveland is able to offer a compelling alternative. Young families and retirees want to live in walkable, dynamic neighborhoods. Who is gonna give it to them?

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Not to the south.   Akron's pull led to what I call the "borderlands" suburbs, low to medium density suburbanization that includes Walton HIlls, which began growing in the 1950s.

In what world is Walton Hills a suburb of Akron?

2 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

I don't think that any suburb of Cincinnati has the potential to truly densify to the scale where people in that suburb no longer need a car.  The new urbanist developments aren't anywhere close to big enough - Blue Ash Summit Park, Union Center in West Chester, etc., aren't "real" places, even after the addition of many apartments and stores. 

 

 

 

 

They are "Drive-To Urbanism".

1 hour ago, Ineffable_Matt said:

In what world is Walton Hills a suburb of Akron?

 

The same one where Northfield Village is a suburb of Cleveland.   There's a band of burbs along the county line that doesn't entirely identify with either city.

On 7/10/2023 at 12:11 PM, Gramarye said:

Who said anything about Republicans here?

 

California is legendarily overregulated, and of course governed almost entirely by Democrats--particularly of one particular strain of the party, one that is very friendly to NIMBYism in the name of quality of life (which also coincidentally has the effect of driving up residential prices).  Los Angeles is bad and San Francisco is worse.  There should be 100,000+ more units of housing there.  The market demand is easily there.  Heck, in many of those cities, you can't even build luxury housing in any significant quantity anymore, let alone entry-level.

 

I 100% agree with @bumsquare and @10albersa that the housing market in Los Angeles is a total excrement exhibition.  But don't you think it's a little bit of a stretch to blame that on Republicans?  It's a blue city in a blue state in a country that currently has a blue president.  Republicans have basically zero control over any aspect of the LA housing market.  Heck, there are more Democrats than Republicans even in Orange County now.

 

I am curious, were Republicans in control in California, are you suggesting that they would have created policies that would've been open to massive housing construction? Because here in reality, almost all GOP-controlled states have housing shortage issues and red states are generally worse across the board on a host of quality-of-life metrics. Do Republicans even care about tackling real problems anymore? 

7 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

It actually works in a slow-growth situation, like Lexington, KY, which enacted the first urban growth boundary (back in 1960 or so).  They also successfully kept the interstate highways miles away from the downtown and oldest neighborhoods.  But no urbanists talk about Lexington, KY because they only talk about the same handful of places, decade after decade.  

 

More often, there are de facto urban growth boundaries.  The most obvious is a body of water or hills/mountains.  Less obvious is a subtle watershed transition that limits sewers. 

 

Dallas and Houston and Atlanta are able to expand, more or less, in all directions, which has helped keep housing costs relatively low in those places as opposed to those that are hemmed-in by geographic features like Los Angeles (although LA had to get truly huge - 10 million + - before it started flirting with its limitations).     

 

 

 

Championing sprawl as anything but an unmitigated disaster for a wide range of reasons is an interesting take. 

5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Championing sprawl as anything but an unmitigated disaster for a wide range of reasons is an interesting take. 

If you read his post, he is not championing sprawl. However, he does point out that some high growth markets like Houston and Atlanta still can offer a reasonable cost of housing because they are not restricted  (less for Houston than Atlanta by geographic limitations that allow for affordable housing to be constructed. In addition, there is government that does not place as many restrictions in those areas toward construction. 

 

12 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I am curious, were Republicans in control in California, are you suggesting that they would have created policies that would've been open to massive housing construction? Because here in reality, almost all GOP-controlled states have housing shortage issues and red states are generally worse across the board on a host of quality-of-life metrics. Do Republicans even care about tackling real problems anymore? 

Although you clearly do are not rational in your argument and seem to have the belief that all the worlds problems are caused by Republicans, it would be worth pointing out that, if there were more of a balance of power in California, there would likely be more construction of housing, especially multi-family housing in urban areas as well as much less restrictive regulations to allow for construction to occur at more reasonable price points.  
If the GOP were in charge, I agree that California would still have a housing shortage (albeit not as bad). In addition, California would still have high housing costs (that has been the case for 40+ years now).

However, one of the biggest challenges to construction is California is the hidden costs of over regulation. The regulatory burden in place by the State and then many municipalities drives up construction costs. Furthermore, California regulations and policy discourages housing, especially lower margin workforce housing in favor of other commercial or high end development (more than other states).  With the GOP in charge, this would probably be lessened a bit.   

 

So yes, California housing would still be expensive but not as much, and there would still be a shortage, but it would not be as exacerbated as it currently is. 

It is 100% true that housing shortages tend to be less severe in GOP controlled states because they allow a lot more housing construction through unmitigated sprawl. But that obviously comes with its own very bad issues. The truth is that both parties are horrible on housing policy.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

However, one of the biggest challenges to construction is California is the hidden costs of over regulation. The regulatory burden in place by the State and then many municipalities drives up construction costs. Furthermore, California regulations and policy discourages housing, especially lower margin workforce housing in favor of other commercial or high end development (more than other states).  With the GOP in charge, this would probably be lessened a bit.   

 

California at the state level is mandating zoning changes in the cities to account for more housing. I cannot speak to other cities but in San Diego the NIMBY's are generally not united by political party. But in SD this policy mandate has opened up a TON of new real estate for housing and the current static is actually over defining the size of the TOD areas eligible for the added density.

 

Interestingly the Chamber of Commerce (typical R's) and environmental groups (typical D's) want the TOD areas defined as within a one mile walk to transit, while critics claim added density beyond a 1/2 mile walk will only increase auto-dependency. The NIMBY's seem to be older types who want SD to be the way it was in the 70's.   

 

There is however a clearer divide when it comes to transit funding; the question of should dollars flow toward trains/buses/bike infrastructure or additional highway lanes. Maybe that's more urban vs. suburban/rural than D vs. R. 

 

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

California at the state level is mandating zoning changes in the cities to account for more housing. I cannot speak to other cities but in San Diego the NIMBY's are generally not united by political party. But in SD this policy mandate has opened up a TON of new real estate for housing and the current static is actually over defining the size of the TOD areas eligible for the added density.

 

Interestingly the Chamber of Commerce (typical R's) and environmental groups (typical D's) want the TOD areas defined as within a one mile walk to transit, while critics claim added density beyond a 1/2 mile walk will only increase auto-dependency. The NIMBY's seem to be older types who want SD to be the way it was in the 70's.   

 

There is however a clearer divide when it comes to transit funding; the question of should dollars flow toward trains/buses/bike infrastructure or additional highway lanes. Maybe that's more urban vs. suburban/rural than D vs. R. 

 

 

I think local Chambers of Commerce in cities have moved away from the old establishment R paradigm. 

7 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Championing sprawl as anything but an unmitigated disaster for a wide range of reasons is an interesting take. 

 

If sewers and other utilities are already in place nearby, greenfield development is usually cheaper than any redevelopment, for a variety of reasons.  This goes for apartment/condos as well as single-family houses. 

 

The problem with most 21st century infill is that it might be relatively dense, but it's still not dense enough to motivate real pedestrian activity.  This infill development on the site of the former Blue Ash Airport is an example of this - the houses are on small lots, but the development isn't oriented around a walkable business district, school, church, post office, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

If sewers and other utilities are already in place nearby, greenfield development is usually cheaper than any redevelopment, for a variety of reasons.  This goes for apartment/condos as well as single-family houses. 

 

The problem with most 21st century infill is that it might be relatively dense, but it's still not dense enough to motivate real pedestrian activity.  This infill development on the site of the former Blue Ash Airport is an example of this - the houses are on small lots, but the development isn't oriented around a walkable business district, school, church, post office, etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feels like you're willfully ignoring the growing business district at Summit Park and the future plans for more commercial development in close proximity. 

^Summit Park is a toy.  Nobody living in the new homes or apartments is living car-free.  Much of the site is dedicated to parking.  In fact, it seems that the only reason that some of the old airport pavement and taxiway was kept was as overflow parking for events. 

Experts at Zillow said Cincinnati is tied with Columbus and Kansas City as the cities with the fastest home sales among the top 50-metros in the U.S.
 

https://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/zillow-cincinnati-housing-market-still-red-hot-despite-nationwide-slowdown

 

8 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 Nobody living in the new homes or apartments is living car-free.  Much of the site is dedicated to parking.  In fact, it seems that the only reason that some of the old airport pavement and taxiway was kept was as overflow parking for events. 

True and this is fine. Blue Ash needed to start somewhere to build something that would attract talent and allow the city to evolve as market demand changes.

 

This development is a start for that push.

9 hours ago, Lazarus said:

^Summit Park is a toy.  Nobody living in the new homes or apartments is living car-free.  Much of the site is dedicated to parking.  In fact, it seems that the only reason that some of the old airport pavement and taxiway was kept was as overflow parking for events. 

 

44 minutes ago, JYP said:

True and this is fine. Blue Ash needed to start somewhere to build something that would attract talent and allow the city to evolve as market demand changes.

 

This development is a start for that push.

If you look at the price point of the homes being developed in Summit Park, these are family homes and not geared toward a walkable community. Everyone has multiple cars and two-3 car garages at those houses.  The park offers a walkable amenity, but what else can you walk too? Need groceries, send kids to school, get food to eat? you need a car. 

 

The one thing about the development is that it brings families into the school district and sustains the schools for a while. Sycamore schools were starting to shrink because the housing stock in the area had been built and there were fewer opportunities for families to relocate to the district. Summit Park's housing has allowed the district to sustain itself a while longer as it offered an opportunity for new housing to come to the district. Otherwise the rest of the area has been built up and the new housing has a very high price point because it involves a tear down.  SOme of the new apartments in Montgomery and Blue Ash will also help but there is really limited room for future development in the area. 

10 hours ago, Lazarus said:

^Summit Park is a toy.  Nobody living in the new homes or apartments is living car-free.  Much of the site is dedicated to parking.  In fact, it seems that the only reason that some of the old airport pavement and taxiway was kept was as overflow parking for events. 

 

Nobody claimed they are living car-free. Outside of the basin, very few people in Cincinnati are living completely car free. But having the restaurants, park, and programming there means that people living in and around Summit Park are taking fewer trips than most people living in the Blue Ash/Montgomery area. That's the goal. It is incrementally better than sprawl and a starting point for more dense, walkable development. 

22 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

If you look at the price point of the homes being developed in Summit Park, these are family homes and not geared toward a walkable community. Everyone has multiple cars and two-3 car garages at those houses.  The park offers a walkable amenity, but what else can you walk too? Need groceries, send kids to school, get food to eat? you need a car. 

 

There are also apartments and more planned. There are a lot of restaurants there now that the apartment dwellers and single family home folks can both walk to. There are plans for more businesses and apartments. I know someone who lives in one of the new urbanist style houses up there and they say they drive a lot less than they used to.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Some of the new apartments in Montgomery and Blue Ash will also help but there is really limited room for future development in the area. 

 

 

The whole site plan needed to front Glandale-Milford assertively and be organized around a traditional north/south/east/west street grid.  Instead, it's all set back like a giant strip mall, with the apartment blocks sitting on blob blocks.  What businesses are on the first floor of those apartments?  Can't tell when driving past on Reed Hartman or Glendale-Milford. 

 

 

Besides the internet, this country has done all it can to make it nearly impossible for anything but big box stores to make it. Setbacks, sign rules, horse fencing, high speed roads, confusing traffic patterns, too few units per development, big box stores being standalone, locating developments way too far away from residential, not having retail space on both sides of the street, more.

6 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

There are also apartments and more planned. There are a lot of restaurants there now that the apartment dwellers and single family home folks can both walk to. There are plans for more businesses and apartments. I know someone who lives in one of the new urbanist style houses up there and they say they drive a lot less than they used to.

There are. I was more trying to highlight the fact that the Sycamore school district is pretty built out with the exception of that area. I was talking with a Montgomery City Councilman recently and they mentioned that outside of the Blue Ash area where you have an influx of new housing coming, much of the rest of the school district is stagnant and shrinking because of the lack of new product and the fact that the older generation is not moving. 

5 hours ago, Lazarus said:

 

 

The whole site plan needed to front Glandale-Milford assertively and be organized around a traditional north/south/east/west street grid.  Instead, it's all set back like a giant strip mall, with the apartment blocks sitting on blob blocks.  What businesses are on the first floor of those apartments?  Can't tell when driving past on Reed Hartman or Glendale-Milford. 

 

 

It is not built out yet. To be fair, they are supposed to build office and hotel on the corner of Glendale Milford and Reed Hartman. The original apartments were supposed to be connected to the park. they do a good job with that. There is a nice ice cream shop there and Sugar and Spice has a place there along with a bottle shop.  
 

I get what you are saying though. I just think it has not been built out completely yet. The fact that office has struggled has contributed to that too

16 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

There are. I was more trying to highlight the fact that the Sycamore school district is pretty built out with the exception of that area. I was talking with a Montgomery City Councilman recently and they mentioned that outside of the Blue Ash area where you have an influx of new housing coming, much of the rest of the school district is stagnant and shrinking because of the lack of new product and the fact that the older generation is not moving. 

 

There's also the Montgomery Quarter development though. And there's lots of single family zoning that can be upzoned in the future. All this stuff tends to happen incrementally because that's how you avoid getting people mad about the change.

On 7/14/2023 at 9:32 AM, DEPACincy said:

 

There's also the Montgomery Quarter development though. And there's lots of single family zoning that can be upzoned in the future. All this stuff tends to happen incrementally because that's how you avoid getting people mad about the change.

True. The conversation was more about the MQ project and was about residents not liking that there were going to be apartments and only wanted single family in the area. The councilman told me that outside of the Blue Ash airport area, there really was no entry point for new residents in the Sycamore schools district and this was a good catalyst to get people to choose to live in the Montgomery area.

 

 

The movie Old School is now 20 years old.  I couldn't help but chuckle at the house they make fun of in the opening scene:

 

This is pre-HGTV, and the ubiquity of house flipping.  The house they trash in this 2003 movie would be worth well north of $500k in many U.S. cities in 2023. 

 

 

 

 

Looks like the Cleveland market is #2 in the nation according to Case Shiller. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/25/sp-case-shiller-may-2023-home-prices-continue-to-climb.html?qsearchterm=case

Hey look, it's more clickbait from Citylab:

 

Silicon Valley has been trying to dismantle the traditional realtor system for more than 10 years.  Looks like those uber-capitalists are sneaking around the back door, disguised as social justice warriors. 

The rent is still cheap in Cincinnati, if you are willing to live with roommates:

 

 

 

 

Neither of these listings create data that can be scraped by those The Rent Is Too Damn High clickbait articles. 

Edited August 11, 20231 yr by Lazarus

Ohio and the rest of the Great Lakes region looks pretty good by comparison -- as long as you don't build right next to the lakes (rising lake levels, erosion, etc)!

 

A HIDDEN CRISIS IN US HOUSING

In places most prone to wildfires and hurricanes, state “insurers of last resort” are absorbing trillions of dollars in risk.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-home-insurance-real-estate-crisis/

 

roundwood manor pool — 🙀

 

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5-LZLzg3An/?igsh=cWN0ZjJlMDJ5d2F6

Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming.

Lawmakers say investors that scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are driving up home prices

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/wall-street-has-spent-billions-buying-homes-a-crackdown-is-looming-f85ae5f6?mod=hp_lead_pos1

1 hour ago, KJP said:

Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming.

Lawmakers say investors that scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are driving up home prices

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/wall-street-has-spent-billions-buying-homes-a-crackdown-is-looming-f85ae5f6?mod=hp_lead_pos1

i can't read beyond the paywall, but I hope the crackdown includes forcing these companies to maintain and even make improvements to the stock they own. 

There is no money in buying then renting out SFH people. Get it in your brains. 20X of things go wrong per unit as compared to apartments. City people have no stuff. If they leave everything behind on you, you wind up with a bed, laptop and a bicycle. A SFH renter leaves three houses' worth of crap behind after being there four months.

Edited May 1, 20241 yr by GCrites

One of the biggest problems with SFH rentals is the massive amount of downtime between tenants as something that wasn't designed to change occupants often the SFH often needs tons of work between occupants. Then you add even more downtime when people leave a whole house+ worth of stuff behind. Stuff the next tenant usually doesn't even want because they already have their own or they just don't like it, has wear or even smells funny. It would be nice to have an infrastructure in place to separate the stuff yourself into donatables, trash, scrap and transferables but that is expensive and time-consuming. Hiring trashout firms is very expensive and the stuff while it's there makes it hard to evaluate the condition of the property. Stuff left in the yard sinks into the ground to be discovered by kids and mowers later. People even pour toxic liquids straight into the ground. This just isn't nearly as much of a problem with multifamily. There's so much less to move with multifamily that people are more likely to actually take it with them rather than just leave it.

@JasonLewris likes the housing markets of Cleveland Columbus Toledo and to a lesser extent Akron.

 

He used the following algorithm to come up with a 3-D graph showing how the top 100 housing markets in the USA are performing.

 

https://www.parcllabs.com/

 

 

^ Can't figure out how to read that thing and the link needs a login!

27 minutes ago, Gabriel said:

^ Can't figure out how to read that thing and the link needs a login!

 

I don't think I've ever seen a Cleveland-area real estate listing make so many people angry on social media because of an asking price. Looks like they dropped $50k, which is something, but this is still kind of out there. I sent it to my realtor and he told me he probably would've walked from the listing if they insisted on asking that. 

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1828-W-48th-St_Cleveland_OH_44102_M43315-18977

 

 

5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I don't think I've ever seen a Cleveland-area real estate listing make so many people angry on social media because of an asking price. Looks like they dropped $50k, which is something, but this is still kind of out there. I sent it to my realtor and he told me he probably would've walked from the listing if they insisted on asking that. 

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1828-W-48th-St_Cleveland_OH_44102_M43315-18977

 

 

 

They likely don't particularly want to sell.   Super high prices for online sales are often money laundering, but I doubt it for a real estate transaction.

 

Unfortunately this is the era of performative outrage and manufactured offense.

14 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

I don't think I've ever seen a Cleveland-area real estate listing make so many people angry on social media because of an asking price. Looks like they dropped $50k, which is something, but this is still kind of out there. I sent it to my realtor and he told me he probably would've walked from the listing if they insisted on asking that. 

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1828-W-48th-St_Cleveland_OH_44102_M43315-18977

 

 

LOL i just saw this the other day I think it popped up on "Next Door" which seems to be the heir apparent from Facebook for NIMBY block clubs!   People were going off about it. 

 

 

It's a very nice property with a huge yard, in a HIGHLY desirable neighborhood. I actually think the updated asking price is fair, given the uniqueness of the house (tax-abated, large lot, 3-car garage, pool) + location. That said, I think final sale's price settles closer to 850K than it does 900K.

 

BTW...this just went pending less than 3.5 blocks away: 

 

 

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3119-Clinton-Ave-Cleveland-OH-44113/67561174_zpid/

Edited January 27Jan 27 by Clefan98

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

I don't think I've ever seen a Cleveland-area real estate listing make so many people angry on social media because of an asking price. Looks like they dropped $50k, which is something, but this is still kind of out there. I sent it to my realtor and he told me he probably would've walked from the listing if they insisted on asking that. 

 

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1828-W-48th-St_Cleveland_OH_44102_M43315-18977

 

 

 

It is amusing that people on social media so often suddenly hate or misunderstand the free market when it comes to housing. Those same commenters would never consider selling their car or anything else for less, but housing definitely stirs up emotions. I get it. 

11 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

It is amusing that people on social media so often suddenly hate or misunderstand the free market when it comes to housing. Those same commenters would never consider selling their car or anything else for less, but housing definitely stirs up emotions. I get it. 

The most frequent gripe I've seen is about the time between sales vs the price increase. 

17 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

It's a very nice property with a huge yard, in a HIGHLY desirable neighborhood. I actually think the updated asking price is fair, given the uniqueness of the house (tax-abated, large lot, 3-car garage, pool) + location. That said, I think final sale's price settles closer to 850K than it does 900K.

 

 

Dunno if I would call that yard "huge" LOL but it's pretty much a given that the complainers only looked at the first pic, which suggests much less space.   Seriously nice interior work.

8 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

Dunno if I would call that yard "huge" LOL but it's pretty much a given that the complainers only looked at the first pic,

 

Haha yeah, good point!

 

Compared to most spots though, this parcel is pretty big (see below). The neighbors around there also have a decent amount of outdoor green space, which isn’t something you see a lot in other urban areas. Especially when you think about how most new builds on the near west-side are either townhomes, condos, or tightly packed single-family homes with little to no yard space at all.

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

It's a very nice property with a huge yard, in a HIGHLY desirable neighborhood. I actually think the updated asking price is fair, given the uniqueness of the house (tax-abated, large lot, 3-car garage, pool) + location. That said, I think final sale's price settles closer to 850K than it does 900K.

 

BTW...this just went pending less than 3.5 blocks away: 

 

 

 

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3119-Clinton-Ave-Cleveland-OH-44113/67561174_zpid/

I've been watching this one closely, as I'm pretty sure it'd be Ohio City's first million dollar home sale which it will clear by a lot. Probably not a good sign for current residents and their property tax bills over the next decade. The Hingetown neighborhood verryyyyyy badly needs the Vibrator Company apartments, Franklin Yards, and another 500 units on the Lutheran Lot to ease some of the demand, or it will be completely unaffordable for 80% of the people living there currently by 2030. 

 

The W48 house doesn't seem too ridiculous to me either. It's basically a triple sized lot for this neighborhood, new build, and has an in ground pool which is very rare for the area. You're essentially buying a property that would go for $600k+ in a nice suburb, and putting it in the highest demand neighborhood in the region. There are townhomes a few blocks away that have sold from $700-900k in recent years, so this looks like a steal compared to those. 

6 hours ago, PlanCleveland said:

I've been watching this one closely, as I'm pretty sure it'd be Ohio City's first million dollar home sale which it will clear by a lot. Probably not a good sign for current residents and their property tax bills over the next decade. The Hingetown neighborhood verryyyyyy badly needs the Vibrator Company apartments, Franklin Yards, and another 500 units on the Lutheran Lot to ease some of the demand, or it will be completely unaffordable for 80% of the people living there currently by 2030. 

 

The W48 house doesn't seem too ridiculous to me either. It's basically a triple sized lot for this neighborhood, new build, and has an in ground pool which is very rare for the area. You're essentially buying a property that would go for $600k+ in a nice suburb, and putting it in the highest demand neighborhood in the region. There are townhomes a few blocks away that have sold from $700-900k in recent years, so this looks like a steal compared to those. 

Just for my general understanding can you explain further what you mean in your first paragraph? More specifically why would demand cause property tax bills to increase and then also why would adding apartments cause property tax bills to decrease?  I was under the impression the appraisals that only happen every 6 years were the driver of tax bills.

4 minutes ago, TDi said:

Just for my general understanding can you explain further what you mean in your first paragraph? More specifically why would demand cause property tax bills to increase and then also why would adding apartments cause property tax bills to decrease?  I was under the impression the appraisals that only happen every 6 years were the driver of tax bills.

There could be large valuation increases the next time homes are reassessed if places start selling for 7 figures regularly. 

 

The apartments wouldn't directly lower the property taxes, but could help to level out all of the demand in the neighborhood. Which could help property values avoid the sharp increases we've seen in recent years.

 

It may not help individual home owners a ton because prices for those who only want to purchase still don't have a ton of options, but it could help to double the number of new rental units in the neighborhood to take some of that demand away. Right now there are far more people who want to live in the area than current housing stock allows, so prices have no where to go but up, and up fast. 

Start of an interesting thread...