Land sale smells rotten

The credibility of Pinellas County government and one of the county's elected constitutional officers, Property Appraiser Jim Smith, has been seriously undermined by revelations about a land deal that smells rotten. St. Petersburg Times staff writer Theresa Blackwell revealed in a front-page story Wednesday that Smith sold a piece of undeveloped North Pinellas property to the county for $225, 000 - the same land to which Smith's own staff had assigned a just value of only $59, 400 last year. The deal raises lots of questions about the accuracy of past appraisals of the 1.5-acre creekside parcel that Smith bought for $15, 000 in 1994.

The county government's role in this cozy arrangement is questionable, too. The county had no burning interest in the property, which is bisected by Brooker Creek in East Lake, until an angry Smith accused the county of trespassing on the property and damaging it.

Smith said he had considered the property an oasis, with its creek, woods and wildlife. But when he visited his property early this year, he found that trees and undergrowth had been mowed down, a new creek channel had been opened and a boat launch had been carved in the creek bank. He blamed the county. The county's story was that crews had to clean out the creek to restore drainage after the 2004 hurricane season. As it turned out, the damage didn't keep Smith from making a huge profit on his under-appraised property.

The county developed a sudden interest in buying Smith's land. The county staff said it could be useful for flood control, though it is not clear how having the county's name on the deed would make the land more useful for that purpose. The county, per its policy on land purchases, ordered an appraisal by an outside firm.

The firm valued Smith's property at $250, 000, but the county's reliance on that appraisal had two glaring problems. First, the appraisal firm emphasized that the $250, 000 figure did not take into account any detrimental water-related issues on the land, yet the county knew the property had wetlands and was in a floodplain. And second, the appraisal was based on a county employee's guess about the amount of developable dry land on the site. Both factors could result in an appraised value that was too high, yet the county proceeded to buy Smith's land for $225, 000 - Smith originally listed the property for sale at $400, 000 - without ordering another appraisal based in reality.

The purchase smells like a payback to Smith for a county blunder on his property. At the very least, the deal reveals a disturbing indifference to proper appraisal techniques and due diligence by county government. At the worst, it is an incestuous arrangement between county insiders that was not sufficiently vented in public and led to taxpayers buying an overvalued property the county did not need.

If $225, 000 is the right price for Smith's parcel, then Smith's office has been undervaluing his land and he has gotten an unfair break on property taxes. If the price is too high, then Smith, who has been Pinellas property appraiser since 1988, had a duty to point out the inadequacies in the county's appraisal process and to accept a lower price or merely a damage settlement. By the way, in a recent interview with the Times editorial board, Smith expressed little sympathy for small businesses and other property owners asking for tax relief.

It appears Smith was acting in his own best interest, not the public's, and that calls into question his fitness for the job of county tax appraiser. It also appears that the county is still wasting tax money even as it prepares to lay off workers and cut services to comply with the state's new property tax relief law.

No wonder taxpayers are angry.

[Last modified July 5, 2007, 22:01:58]