One of the most often asked question I get is "How many square feet does this home have?" The second most often asked question, especially from Californians, is "Why doesn't Georgia allow the square footage to be stated?"
While doing a CMA for a buyer today I experienced a big reason for sticking to such a "backwards" rule. I pulled up the tax records for 5 homes in the same subdivision that had the exact same floor-plan. The tax records usually state the square footage and some people make decisions based on these figures. But how accurate are these numbers? Here is the variability for the same floor-plan: 2572, 1867, 2298, 2269, 2090. Which one is correct? This is from a single taxing authority that hopefully uses some standard practices. What if you also had varying opinions on exactly how to measure square feet?
In Georgia, what you see is what you get. Sometimes size isn't as important as what you do with the size that you have. So use the tax information with a little skepticism. It also shows why one might not want to put too much weight on anything based on the tax records, ie. Zillow's Zestimates.
Comments(7)