Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase.pdf
Susan Solomon Petitioner V City Of Southfield Respondent · 26-002839-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
Kenneth Solomon 403 Monterey Rd. Pacifica, CA 94044 Home Phone: (650) 738-8037 Email: fogpac@hotmail.com July 28, 2026 Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 RE: REASONS FOR APPEAL OF 2026 ASSESSED VALUE INCREASE PARCEL #: 76-24-24-176-008 (Lot 135 – Meadow Downs Sub No. 1) The subject property has been in my family’s possession since 1955, three years before Southfield incorporated as a city. In 2024, my sister, Susan Solomon, and I became joint owners thereof. Pertinent background The subject property is extraordinarily unique, but not by itself. It is one of the 31 vacant, similar- sized parcels in an unimproved 15-acre section of an otherwise fully built subdivision in Southfield. The subdivision, Meadow Downs Subdivision No. 1, established in 1942, notably, abuts the City of Lathrup Village, to the west, see attached EXHIBIT A. The unimproved section of Meadow Downs No. 1, containing the subject property, is hereinafter referred to as the “subdivision.” Each of the 31 parcels in the subdivision, historically, was separately and privately owned. The subdivision also historically contained limited public infrastructure, e.g., an interior unimproved road (Meadowood Road) and its right-of-way that provided two points of external access and the only access to the frontage of each of the lots therein, see attached EXHIBIT B. Meadowood Road connected west to the abutting neighborhood in the City of Lathrup Village and extended ½ mile further east, through the City of Southfield, to a major arterial, Greenfield Road. And, in the 1960’s, the City of Southfield installed limited public utilities1 within the subdivision, while imposing a separate special assessment fee per utility to defray such costs. All such infrastructure was historically maintained, as applicable, by each of the respective Cities, until it suddenly wasn’t. The City of Southfield, from about 1981-1991, imposed severe development constraints on the subdivision, as discussed further herein, all of which remain today. The City also abandoned its road infrastructure and most of its utilities therein, while the City of Lathrup Village earlier vacated its access road thereto. Such abandonment caused the subdivision to evolve from a wide open, fully accessible, buildable, and build-ready development site into the current inaccessible, impassable, and undevelopable forest, surrounded by homes, adding to the constraints. The City of Southfield has not been a passive or neutral regulator and is the cause of the subdivision remaining unbuilt for the past 45 years. It is also now both the largest landowner and, effectively, the master developer therein – given it is conversely and clandestinely facilitating development of an unspecified number of its own lots, as discussed further herein. 1 Refers to water and sewer/stormwater (combined) mains and appurtenances (e.g., fire hydrants, valve boxes, manholes, catch basins, etc...), separately installed in the Meadowood R-O-W within the subdivision. Another separate but connected water main was also installed in an easement along the interior side of the west boundary of the subdivision. All were installed, speculatively, between 1960-70.
Page 2
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 2 Ignored value-reducing factors Severe development constraints – The uniqueness of the subject property and subdivision stems from the City-imposed development constraints thereon, all of which are independently value- reducing. However, the current property record card, I’ve belatedly learned, either excludes, misrepresents, or over trivializes all such constraints, rendering the assessed value as an extreme overvaluation of the subject property. Each of the constraints, in order of commencement, is below: 1. No public road access: a) Loss of west vehicular access to subdivision - 45 years ago, the west access road to the subdivision, in the abutting City of Lathrup Village, was discovered barricaded. It is now occupied by mature trees and other landscaping - see attached EXHIBIT C. The reason for this was unknown until discovered literally earlier this year: The City of Lathrup Village, in 1973, had vacated said road,2 permanently eliminating the west access, notably, absent any objection by the City of Southfield. b) Loss of east vehicular access to subdivision – Also 45 years ago, the City of Southfield, initially inexplicably, and without notice, barricaded the east access to the subdivision, functionally landlocking both the subject property and subdivision since that time. Such “LANDLOCKED” condition was documented earlier by the City Assessor’s Office, see attached EXHIBIT D. Most striking, after the barricade was first discovered, the City, inexplicably, “refuse[d]” to remove it.3 A decade later, the City alleged it was installed to “prevent dumping in and around the vacant area”, see attached EXHIBIT E. The barricade, initially an immovable steel guardrail, was recently replaced with vehicle obstacles, see photos attached as EXHIBIT F. c) Loss of interior road & vehicular access to all interior lots - The City of Southfield also long- ago, inexplicably and without notice, ceased all use and maintenance of Meadowood Road and its right-of-way within the subdivision. This caused the road to disintegrate and disappear and the entire right-of-way to evolve into the current forest, prohibiting practical access to the subject property and all other interior lots in the subdivision. Therefore, given the subject property is located in the center of the subdivision, the nearest available public road is about 625 feet east of the center of the property frontage. 2. Diminished interior road – Removal of the west access road to the subdivision transformed the interior road therein from a connector to a dead-end road, reducing the utility, development potential, and market desirability of all properties in the subdivision. It also triggers State and local fire code compliance issues, e.g., the length of the (future) road, if rebuilt, would exceed that allowed for a dead-end road, and the right-of-way width is insufficient for a fire apparatus turn-around. Also, should all 31 parcels be built, each home must have a fire sprinkler system.4 3. No (functional) public utilities - The City had long ago, inexplicably and without notice, also abandoned all use and maintenance of the public utilities within the Meadowood right-of-way in the subdivision, despite they were paid for by the subdivision landowners via two separate 2 The City Council of the City of Lathrup Village, on May 7, 1973, permanently vacated, discontinued, and closed Meadowood St. East and R-O-W, eliminating all public use (vehicle & pedestrian) thereof, reverting the land ownership to adjacent property owners in Lathrup Village. 3 Per letter from Harold J. Merkow to “ALL MEADOWDOWNS…PROPERTY OWNERS”, dated 2/13/81. 4 The City of Southfield adheres to the 2021 MI Building Code, which requires two fire apparatus access roads for subdivisions exceeding 30 homes, unless each home has an approved fire sprinkler system.
Page 3
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 3 special assessments. The exception is the watermain along the west boundary of the subdivision, which serves beyond the subdivision, and is believed operational. While the abandoned utilities remain in place, they’re reasonably presumed degraded beyond use, given their advanced age and that such abandonment is known to drastically accelerate the natural deterioration and compromise the structural integrity and safety of such systems. One of the mains has already exceeded its design life5 by 7 years, and the other is only 4 years shy of the lower range of the same.6 The demise of such utilities is corroborated by two facts: 1) The City long-ago ceased its special assessment fees; and, 2) Many of the above-ground fixtures are evidently severely damaged by rust, displacement, other natural forces, including vandalism and neglect, see photos attached as EXHIBIT G. Therefore, again, given the subject property is located in the center of the subdivision, the nearest functioning public utilities are about 625 feet east of the center of the property frontage, while the watermain along the west side of the subdivision is further away. 4. Wetlands designation – The City, speculatively in 1991, designated the subject property, including 70+% of the other properties in the subdivision, as containing wetlands, based on its “official” wetlands map, as adopted by ordinance. And, in 1992, the City’s Planning Director deemed the subject property is “covered by wetlands and is therefore undevelopable without mitigation of the wetlands”, see again prior EXHIBIT E. Given that nothing has since changed, said determination is held valid today. The impacts of the wetlands on the development and valuation of the subject property are discussed in the attached EXHIBIT N. Noteworthy, the City has produced, over the years, conflicting “official” wetlands boundary maps. Added to this, two environmental entities have each, more recently, produced further conflicting maps that both show far more extensive wetlands coverage on the subject property. Most recently, the City produced a new “official” wetlands map that overlays its wetlands boundaries onto one of the other two more recent and extensive wetland boundaries, see attached EXHIBIT H1. The third, most recent wetlands map, inexplicably ignored by the City, is provided as EXHIBIT H2. Most hypocritical, only months prior to constraining the subject property as a wetland, the City had both considered and physically treated such wetland as a public nuisance. For 12 years, the City had unilaterally “mowed” the subject property, under the guise of nuisance abatement, and invoiced my family, often excessively, for each visit, see EXHIBIT J. The City last “mowed” the subject property (i.e., wetlands) six months after it drafted its first “official” wetlands map, and six months before adopting it, per available records. 5. Woodlands designation – The City also, in about 1991, designated the subject property, including the entire subdivision, a “Woodlands”, see attached EXHIBIT I. Notably, this is different than, and independent of, the Wetlands designation. The purpose of the Woodlands designation is tree protection (not timber harvesting), and requires City inspections and permits, including compensatory replacement for removal of, or impacts to, all but specifically exempted trees, regardless of size. This adds significant complexity, cost, and uncertainty to any development of the subject property, and, as such, is significantly value-reducing. 6. Highest and Best Use (HBU) is indeterminable – Effectively as a result of each of the above, the subject property has an indeterminable HBU, per an independent qualified real estate appraisal, as documented in the attached EXHIBIT L. Despite the appraisal was prepared in 5 The sewer main, installed in about 1969, has an estimated lifespan of “50 years”, per public records. 6 The water main, installed in about 1960, has an average lifespan of 70-75 yrs., per online sources.
Page 4
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 4 2024, it remains valid today. Further substantiation that the City-designated HBU, single-family residential, fails “The Four Tests” is provided in the attached EXHIBIT N. 7. Subject property cannot be developed independently – Due mostly to the cost, but also to other factors, associated with the above constraints, development of the subject property by itself has proven financially and economically infeasible. 8. Bad faith by City of Southfield – The City lacks any/all objectivity to fairly assess property values in the subdivision, given its extensive history of regulatory abuse, dishonesty, non- transparency, and conflicts of interest therein, as outlined below and discussed in further detail in the attached EXHIBIT J: Informal review by Deputy Assessor My sister, Susan Solomon, met with the City’s Deputy Assessor on Feb 17, 2026, to protest the increased valuation as excessive due to many of the reasons further substantiated herein. Said Assessor had focused singularly on the wetlands issue and said, effectively: “just because it’s a wetland doesn’t mean it [property] can’t be developed”. Appeal to March Board of Review (MBOR) The MBOR met on Mar 2, 2026 and was presented with the following petitioner documents: • Petition to Board of Review, dated 3/2/26, see attached EXHIBIT K1 • Photo of east entrance area to subdivision, dated 2/18/26, see attached EXHIBIT K1 • Independent qualified real estate appraisal, dated 1/8/24, see attached EXHIBIT L7 Everything discussed by my sister with the MBOR is covered herein; however, given she had only 10 days to prepare for the meeting, the content herein is more extensive, comprehensive, and documented. The MBOR, in its denial, see attached EXHIBIT K2, cited “COMPARABLES SUPPORT VALUE”. Contrary thereto, as substantiated below, the City’s comparables are invalid. Grounds for Appeal This appeal rebuts the impartiality of the City, given its extensive and ongoing history of conflicts of interest and bad faith, as documented more thoroughly in the attached EXHIBIT J. It also rebuts the correctness of the assessed value as an egregious four-fold escalation of the same erroneous overassessment in prior years. Overall, the assessed value is an extreme overvaluation based on a foundational document that is rife with material omissions and inaccuracies. It is also based on flawed methodologies, lacks equality and uniformity, and is utterly and completely contrary to an earlier independent qualified appraisal. All such issues are further explained below and attached. 1. Misrepresentation of facts – The current property record card, attached as EXHIBIT M, I’ve belatedly discovered, either excludes, misrepresents, or over trivializes each of the value- reducing development constraints, as previously discussed herein, resulting in an extreme overvaluation. Each of the inaccuracies of the property record card is outlined below: Failure of property record card to accurately recognize all value-reducing factors: • City-designated Highest & Best Use is indeterminable, as documented in EXHIBITS L & N. • Subdivision access was diminished from 2 to 1 access points via loss of west access road. • The subdivision interior road was diminished from a connector to a dead-end street. 7 Note: the appraisal presented to the MBOR excluded the attachments provided in EXHIBIT L.
Page 5
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 5 • The east subdivision entrance is vehicularly inaccessible, due to City barricade/obstacles. • The subject property and subdivision interior are both vehicularly inaccessible, due to trees. • The former “LVA8 LANDLOCKED” notation was wrongly removed, see EXHIBIT D. • The City earlier deemed the property is currently “undevelopable”, see EXHIBIT E. • “WETLAND” LVA is misrepresented as a discountable minor defect v.s. unbuildable area.9 • The “Wetland” checkbox is unchecked, trivializing the “WETLAND” LVA notation. • The “Woodlands” designation, which is independent of Wetlands designation, is missing. • The “Water” service is misrepresented as available, contrary to previous discussion herein. • The “Sewer” service is misrepresented as available, contrary to previous discussion herein. • The nearest public road is about 625 feet from the center of the property frontage. • The nearest (functioning) public utilities are about 625 feet from center of property frontage. Many of the above also apply in whole or part to most of the other properties in the subdivision. 2. Contrary to independent appraisal – Due to the site-specific uniqueness and restrictive nature of the subject property, via its severe development constraints, an earlier independent state- licensed real estate appraiser found, among other things, as documented in EXHIBIT L, each of the following: • Subject property has an indeterminable Highest and Best Use (HBU). • Subject property had zero ($0) market value in 2023. • Market approach is unreliable – There’s “no basis for a reliable market valuation” and “the market approach cannot be utilized to estimate the subject property's value.” • “[T]raditional market sales comparisons (comps) are not available or applicable.” Despite said appraisal was prepared in early 2024, and established the stated market value in late 2023, nothing has materially changed, such that it remains valid today. 3. Failure to physically inspect property – Despite the uniqueness of the subject property and subdivision, the City conducted a mere “DRIVE BY”10, outside the subdivision only, twice. Also, notable, the first such visit was after the City had already issued its tentative Notice of Assessment, and only days before the MBOR meeting. The assessed value, thusly, was derived by generalized and remote “desk review” assessment methods only, all of which are inaccurate, unreliable, or inapplicable for the subject property, as substantiated previously herein, below, and attached. 4. Invalid comparables – The subject property has no equal outside of the subdivision and is comparable only to the other similarly constrained properties in the subdivision. That said, three months after the MBOR meeting, and only after repeated requests, the City provided its untitled list of 8 comparables, see EXHIBIT O. Regarding said comparables: a) Outdated – The youngest of said comparables is one year old. All others are 15 months or older, and one half are older than 2.5 years. b) Substantively dissimilar – The alleged comparables demonstrate pure overreach: • All are based on a highest and best use that, for the subject property, is indeterminable. 8 LVA = Land Value Adjustment. 9 Contrary thereto, the wetland effectively occupies 59% to 85% of the subject property, depending on which of three different wetland maps ultimately proves more reliable, see EXHIBITS H1, H2, and N. 10 Per the latest Property Record Card, see EXHIBIT M.
Page 6
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 6 • All involve standard, buildable, and build-ready infill lots, unlike the subject property. • Two are in a different ECF Area (424B and 424C), versus 424A. • All were fully developed with a home when sold, but for only one that was vacant. • Over 60% are significantly larger in land size, i.e., from 1,600 – 10,750+ sq. ft. larger. • All fronted along a fully improved public road when sold. • All fronted along a public R-O-W containing working infrastructure/utilities when sold. • None were negatively impacted by any of the severe value-reducing constraints herein. c) Critical omissions – The City, inexplicably, omitted each of the following: • The one and only truly comparable market sale of a property, in the subdivision, see attached EXHBIT P, dated younger than ½ of the City’s contrived comparables. • All 2025 market sales, seemingly similar to the City’s listed comparables. d) No adjustments – But for the erroneous “Wetlands” adjustment, the City has provided no evidence of any other adjustments applied for the other unique value-reducing attributes that distinguish the subject property apart from any of the City’s alleged comparables. 5. Assessed value is non-uniform, unequal, and inequitable: • While nearly 40% of the subdivision properties are owned by the City or its development partners and exempt from property taxes, the balance (60%) of privately-owned properties are penalized with a disproportionate share of the tax burden, compounded over decades. • 80+% of the properties owned by the City or its development partners in the subdivision were also likely lower-taxed than the subject property, based on their lower land value.11 • All but one of the 16 parcels along the north side of the Meadowood R-O-W are treated more favorably than all 15 of the parcels along the south side of said R-O-W. • The City is currently selling one of its own nearby, similar vacant lots12 for less than the assessed value of the subject property, despite it is larger and has none of the constraints. 6. Subject property is not donatable to other than the City of Southfield: • Given the environmental liabilities and 4-fold increase in tax liability that uncaps after transfer of ownership, finding a preferred & receptive non-profit donee is highly improbable. • Donation for wetland mitigation or conservation purposes is also highly improbable, given the subject property, alone, is too small, as discussed in EXHIBIT N. Remedy Requested Preference: Reduce assessed value to $0. Alternative: retain the prior year assessed value. Kenneth Solomon Attached Exhibits: A. Contextual location map B. Subdivision layout 11 Land value refers to the City of Southfield, 2026 Residential Land Value Mapbook for Section 24. 12 Refers to vacant Parcel #76-24-24-227-008, 0.55 acres in size, currently offered for sale @ $10,000.
Page 7
Appeal of 2026 Assessed Value Increase Vacant Parcel # 76-24-24-176-008 Page 7 C. Photo of Lathrup Village (west) access to subdivision, current D. City of Southfield Property Record Card (1988-92) E. Letter from Barbara McBeth, Southfield Planning Tech., to Milton Solomon, dated 7/15/92 F. Photos of the obstructed east access to subdivision G. Photos of fire hydrant and water valve box deterioration, 2026 and 2013 H1. City of Southfield official Wetlands Boundaries Map, undated, and Friends of the Rouge (FOTR) wetlands boundaries map, dated 2005 H2. USFWS Draft National Wetlands Boundary Map, dated 2015 I. City of Southfield official Woodlands Map J. Documentation of bad faith by the City of Southfield K1. Documents submitted to MBOR on 3/2/226 K2. MBOR decision 4/2/26 L. Real estate appraisal, 1/8/24 M. City of Southfield Property Record Card, 6/29/26 N. City-designated Highest and Best Use (HBU) is Indeterminable O. City of Southfield List of Market Sales Comparables, provided by City on 5/8/26 P. Omitted comparable market sales, provided by City of Southfield CC: Susan Solomon, 25635 Grand Concourse St., Southfield, MI, 48075