I've been at this a while so I use my intuitive instincts... and make up a number.

The attached Gas Service Layout details Con Edison’s requirements for providing service."

I need to be careful with the details on this one, as I signed a C/A so as such I will ONLY be posting info presented on the publicly available flyer.Details are:City: Flint, MI (it is on Detroit water, not the hosed up Flint system)Water/Sewer are municipalPads: 87 (weird layout of existing homes make the usable pad rate only 85)Park owned homes: 85 (40 or so vacant--it seems this has improved since last year, maybe)Average Lot Rent: $285/monthRoads: AsphaltAsking Price: $525k2013-2015 reported income (per flyer): $212k, $190k, $206kNotwithstanding the obvious math discrepancies of 45*285*12 = $154k (far off the reported income), the really interesting part is the reported expenses for those years at $171k (81%), $166k (87%), and $149k (72%), respectively.So it is obvious that the management leaves a lot to be desired if the actual operating expenses could be cut down to the 30-40% nominal.  

It sounds counter-intuitive, but at 3.5% IRR, the policy yield outpaces the 5% interest if I hold the loan for 21 year loan and repay interest yearly (12 years at 4% IRR). 

Exact same layout, etc as my other place (3 beds, this has 1.5 baths), needs full cosmetic updates including roof and some additional exterior work, but she'll turn out great. 

But its just so funny hearing someone share that as its so counter-intuitive for what we would do out here.There's definitely some common ground in terms of not wanting to overprice your house from the beginning and having it sit, then price drop, etc.   

It didn't make intuitive sense to me as the lake is bigger, closer to Little Rock (easier commute), and the houses were substantially cheaper (though on smaller lots) than Beaverfork Lake. 

Only bedrooms are under bedrooms though (same layout both floors). 

Do you lay out the criteria for when a tenant earns your right to a "hand up" in your operating procedures, to avoid liability issues with the FHA of '68? 

Just trying to figure out if the cost to dispute is worth it relative to the yearly reduction I might receive in my annual property tax bill.NOTE: My assumption is that although the 500 sq ft is technically official per the Registry of Deeds, any buyer down the road would be able to identify the living space vs basement with a quick sizing up of the condo unit's layout via tape measure -  i.e. having the extra 500 sq ft stitched to the unit on record doesn't seem like it would work much to my advantage.2) Do any members have suggestions on the best approaches to disputing assessed value for property tax purposes?