Skip to comments.
'View Tax' Triggers Revolt in Rural N.H.
AP ^
| 10/31/05
| Katharine Webster
Posted on 10/31/2005 5:18:40 PM PST by GeorgiaDawg32
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
To: GeorgiaDawg32
Class warfare makes a "view tax" perfectly acceptable, but morally and legally unjustifiable.
This trend needs to be nipped in the bud. If the decision is made by an elected official, vote him out.
If by an appointed or hired bureaucrat, fire him. Here is one area where timidity or hesitation is fatal.
If they can't wait until the property changes hands and the real value established by how much a purchaser is willing to pay, then too bad.
Arbitrary and capricious subjective self-serving governance has never been moral, legal nor Constitutional.
21
posted on
10/31/2005 6:19:44 PM PST
by
Publius6961
(Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
To: gondramB
Well property taxes are based on property values... just like seaside property is worth more, I can see how some mountain property is worth more.That is undeniable.
The problem is that when a property sells, the value is based on reality and assessment based on selling price justified. Preemptive assessment is a guess, subject to abuse (take that to the bank!) and not acceptable under any circumstances!
22
posted on
10/31/2005 6:22:10 PM PST
by
Publius6961
(Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
To: Past Your Eyes
What if the owner is blind?
What if my property value has gone way up, but I don't like it here?
The real answer is that the efficient thing for someone who does not value his property as much as the market does, is to sell, and buy one he values more for the same price. Which is what actually happens in the real world.
I hate property taxes, but I hate even worse that affordability should be a factor. The only factor should be the cost to provide shared services to the property. Talking affordability plays into the Marxists' ("from each") hands.
23
posted on
10/31/2005 6:25:28 PM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: Beelzebubba
The real answer is that the efficient thing for someone who does not value his property as much as the market does, is to sell, and buy one he values more for the same price. Yeah I agree, but it's also a way for force someone to move which is definitely offensive to liberty.
I think that the property tax assessment should be locked in on purchase of a property with a maximum increase of maybe 1% a year. I think this is how California does it.
This allows people that have owned their homes for long periods of time to keep them even when a new development springs up next door and raises the property values.
If the local government needs more money to operate then they can raise the sales tax or actually find a way to cut the budget. Seriously, how many local police forces really need a SWAT team?
Property rights are central to living in a free society and unencumbered property tax abuses makes property owners into mere renters.
To: fat city
Houses in Netherlands used to have a "window tax" so they built very few windows into the houses. Unfinished houses in Greece used to be taxed at a far lower rate than finished ones. Almost all of the houses had an unfinished row of bricks with rebar sticking up along the sides of the walls on the roof as if they were beginning a second story which never quite got finished for some reason.
25
posted on
10/31/2005 6:54:34 PM PST
by
FreedomCalls
(It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
To: KC_for_Freedom
The value of a view is not a bad thing to use for a tax as long as there is a way to measure it. I vaguely recall that "The Donald" paid something like $5M for the "air" rights over some building, Tiffany's maybe, that
was in the line of view to Central Park from one of his buildings.
In other words, he paid for an encumbrance on the deed to that particular plot of land.
To: fat city
"Houses in Netherlands used to have a "window tax" so they built very few windows into the houses." Houses in this region were once taxed by the number of rooms, built-in closets were taxed as rooms. Few old housed around here have built in closets, they have 'stand-alone closets stuck in the corners of rooms.
27
posted on
10/31/2005 7:18:24 PM PST
by
blam
To: gondramB
Well property taxes are based on property valuesCan government truly accurately access the value of property that's not on the market to be sold?
28
posted on
10/31/2005 7:39:47 PM PST
by
Lester Moore
(islam's allah is Satan and is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.)
To: Calvin Locke
Again, there are ways to put a value on a view. But I doubt the tax assessor can do it. Maybe if similar properties, one with a view and the other without could be compared side by side? OK that may do it. But I would like several such compairsons before I had to pay a "view" tax.
29
posted on
10/31/2005 7:41:43 PM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: GeorgiaDawg32
I should really just kill myself.
30
posted on
10/31/2005 9:21:36 PM PST
by
jocon307
To: freepatriot32
31
posted on
11/01/2005 3:06:51 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: freepatriot32
32
posted on
11/01/2005 3:35:10 AM PST
by
BJClinton
(Caliphate? Let’s Motivate!)
To: GeorgiaDawg32
"Live Free or Die"?
Prove it, suckers.
33
posted on
11/01/2005 3:36:57 AM PST
by
Wormwood
(Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
To: JeffAtlanta
I think that the property tax assessment should be locked in on purchase of a property with a maximum increase of maybe 1% a year. I think this is how California does it.
This allows people that have owned their homes for long periods of time to keep them even when a new development springs up next door and raises the property values.Sounds good, but I think it might not work unless eminent domain abuse is reined in. That property tax "hole" in the midst of high-revenue subdivisions is a ripe target for "economic development".
To: gondramB
Property tax is based on the PRODUCTIVITY (or potential) of a property. A view from a property may not be considered with the same value by different people. Aesthetics do help in consideration of property value, but is not the sole determining factor of the functionality of the property.
Now if the property is a resort or lodge, the aesthetics are priced into the value of the stay at the lodging. And as a commercial property, could be considered in property tax values because the property is considered commercial.
For residential property this tax is just wrong.
Potential abuses of a view tax could include sunlight exposure (potential for solar energy) among other things.
Creative taxes have to be squashed before precedent is set.
To: Lester Moore
Can government truly accurately access the value of property that's not on the market to be sold?
They sure as hell believe they can - some people/developers moved into my neighborhood, bought some small lots, tore down the houses, built some huge two and even a three-story homes on these lots, and then began lobbying the city to place restrictions on future development (i.e. no more large homes like their's - no more people buying and then combining multiple lots). These jerks basically moved in, built the biggest homes in the area, and then lobbied to make sure that they will always have the largest/most expensive homes (and some have already sold, within months of them being built).
The rest of us in the area see our views go out the window, and see our property taxes rise substantially over several years, and this is regardless of the fact that none of us have any desire to move (it's a great/old neighborhood, hence the reason why the jerks wanted to move in, build up, and then sell).
Unfortunately our city is in love with these developers who go around driving values up in older neighborhoods (they are even starting to hit some of the poorer parts of town), and what city wouldn't be - if somebody can tear down two houses on two lots worth a combined $150,000, and build a $300,000 home, not only will they get more tax money from that new single lot, but they will get more from surrounding lots going up in value.
It's so criminal, what is being done to property owners. Owning your own home does not appear to be something that will be attainable for younger couples anymore, unless they are willing to commute an hour or more.
To: gondramB
There are too many people beyond the property owner that are making plans for our property behind our backs. They have been granted a free pass to make decisions about our property through local and regional Planning and zoning commissions, environmental "strategy" and tax assessment.
They are slowly violating private property rights and every new taking of private property sets a new precedent that corrupt courts can use to "justify" the further "taking" of private property.
To: GeorgiaDawg32
sTUPID, LOCALITIES ARE WORING IN "VIEWSHEDS" IN gENERIC Environmental Impact Studies.
If you read viewshed or view tax, run for the hills, or perhaps a cave.
38
posted on
11/01/2005 7:39:09 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
(Confirm Alito before year end!)
To: Publius6961
This trend needs to be nipped in the bud. If the decision is made by an elected official, vote him out. If by an appointed or hired bureaucrat, fire him. Here is one area where timidity or hesitation is fatal. Worth repeating.
39
posted on
11/01/2005 7:39:58 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
(Confirm Alito before year end!)
To: KC_for_Freedom
"The value of a view is not a bad thing to use for a tax as long as there is a way to measure it"
What could high plains property in Colorado be worth when it exposes the first "view" of the Rockies when driving westbound?
The otherwise dry, sage brush pasture with the skinny cows suddenly could become a bonanza revenue for the tax collector who had only been assessing the property based upon agricultural potential productivity prior to the discovery of a new valuation formula.
This tax concept has to be squashed. Every property has a view of some kind. The state could create more road side "lookouts" on scenic routs solely to enhance tax revenue of the private property viewed from the public thoroughfare. The potential for abuse is staggering.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson