1 Comment

Unfortunately Trump seems to be succeeding in planting the idea that the NY state judge is the party who valued Mar A Lago at $18M. That is simply factually false, and seems worth pushing back at since it is now going around online.

It is uncontested fact (which Trump's lawyers did not dispute) that the party who valued Mar A Lago at between $18-27M is the local county assessor in Florida, who placed its value in that range 12 years in a row. The reason for that valuation is clear-cut: the property is no longer legally subdividable or developable. Trump in 2002 signed an irrevocable deed in which he surrendered all rights to develop or use any part of the parcel for any purposes other than the existing social club. He did that in order to get a large one-time tax deduction for the resulting historic-preservation easement as well as annual reduced property taxes. That easement is permanent, it "goes with the land", that's why he had to sign and record a fresh deed in order to receive the tax benefit.

Hence most of the Mar A Lago property's market value was legally extinguished, and comparisons to neighboring properties on which new houses or other structures have been built are specious. The county assessor correctly based its valuations, and Trump's annual property tax bills, on comparable properties that have the same sort of deed restriction on them.

But Trump kept basing his sworn financial statements on the idea that the Mar A Lago parcel could be sold at any time for something like half a billion if not more. He did that over and over for years. And he is repeating that assertion -- something that is impossible due to his own on-the-record actions -- in public right now. In other words he is literally right now repeating in public the exact same obviously-fraudulent claims that was just found guilty of.

To sum up: the judge did not value Mar-A-Lago; the county assessor did. And the county assessor was entirely correct in arriving at that valuation because of what Trump had done in order to gain some tax breaks.

Expand full comment