Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

The one-room cabin David Bischoff built in a cow pasture three years ago has no electricity, no running water, no phone service and no driveway. What it does have is a wide-open view of nearby hills and distant mountains _ which makes it seven times more valuable than if it had no view, according to the latest townwide property assessment. He expects his property taxes to shoot up accordingly.

Bischoff and other Orford residents bitterly call that a "view tax," and they are leading a revolt against it that has gained support in many rural towns in New Hampshire.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: propertytax; taxrevolt; viewtax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
I didn't see this posted. If it's a duplicate thread, I apologize.
1 posted on 10/31/2005 5:18:41 PM PST by GeorgiaDawg32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

Houses in Netherlands used to have a "window tax" so they built very few windows into the houses.


2 posted on 10/31/2005 5:24:47 PM PST by fat city ("The nation that controls magnetism controls the world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

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.


3 posted on 10/31/2005 5:27:59 PM PST by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

They will lose. My oceanfront home was hit with a "view tax" ten years ago. When we won, the city had to refund all monies for 3 years, and pay our legal fees.


4 posted on 10/31/2005 5:28:53 PM PST by calrighty (Taglines for sale or let......1 liners 50 cents! C'mon troops, finish em off!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I'm sure the property is already assessed based on location like any other land.

If you cut down the trees next to your house and then suddenly have a "view" it shouldn't change your tax rate.


5 posted on 10/31/2005 5:37:56 PM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Floridas save our home ammendment looks better and better everyday


6 posted on 10/31/2005 5:38:09 PM PST by italianquaker (Bush Derangement syndrome coming to a theatre near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

F'em in Orford. 236 Rats voted for Kerry, 71 for Bush in 2004. These rural tax-maggots have been putting the squeeze on the more affluent portion of the state, trying to increase our taxes in Bush country to improve the schools in thier 1 horse towns.


7 posted on 10/31/2005 5:41:38 PM PST by evolved_rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evolved_rage
The state has no general income or sales tax, and the resulting high property taxes are hardest on those who are land- rich but income-poor. want to live in the sticks but have all the benefits of the towns
8 posted on 10/31/2005 5:46:07 PM PST by evolved_rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
"In Bischoff's case, the view added $140,000 to his property's underlying value of $22,900. As a result, he expects his property taxes to jump from less than $500 last year to more than $3,000 this year."

Wow

9 posted on 10/31/2005 5:46:22 PM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evolved_rage

The native types have long since been squashed by the flatlanders and the academic sexual intellectuals from nearby Dartmouth. Check out the vote tally in Lyme, which is the next town to the south and right next to Hanover (Dartmouth).


10 posted on 10/31/2005 5:46:39 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

What if the owner is blind?


11 posted on 10/31/2005 5:47:10 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

"What if the owner is blind?"

For fairness there ought to be all kinds of exceptions to taxes - like if the person is elderly and has lived in the area since before the land became valuable... there are limits to how much that can be done...

The pumpkin and Christmas tree farm we go to every October and December is now surrounded by trendy subdivisions - that family has been farming there since the the war of Northern Aggression and I dread the day they can no longer stay there.


12 posted on 10/31/2005 5:51:12 PM PST by gondramB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
13 posted on 10/31/2005 5:51:22 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evolved_rage

You should also know that this Steve Taylor, commissioner of agriculture, also happens to be a Democrat who would no doubt rejoice if the state became like all its neighbors and had a sales tax and an income tax. Might as well throw in a bottle bill, too, and then we'd be just as effed up as all those around us.


14 posted on 10/31/2005 5:53:10 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: abbi_normal_2; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; AMDG&BVMH; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights,farms,environment ping.
15 posted on 10/31/2005 5:53:33 PM PST by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Good to see you back, amigo. I hope you don't take off. But I'll certainly understand if you do. Just let us know where.


16 posted on 10/31/2005 6:00:05 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (SCALITO! YEAH, BABY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kanawa
They reassessed my place in Middleton, NH, on fair value, even though I am still looking for my Hard Wood Floors.

This is a commie sob story pushing for a state income tax. The tax on undeveloped property is much lower in NH than in Mass.

If I read the tax law correctly, because he is blind he is paying nada for taxes, age and veterans status are other exemptions, this story is BS.

17 posted on 10/31/2005 6:00:45 PM PST by Little Bill (A 37%'r, a Red Spot on a Blue State, rats are evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

When we left CA for TX, we thought views were of great value. When we found a house in Austin with a great view, we gladly plunked down the owners asking price. Later we discovered that Texans place about a $3000 value on a view. We paid a lot more, trust me.

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. If, for example our owner could build a turn out and charge money for the view then the view would have commercial value. If he cannot, then its commercial value is pretty low. If the tax assessor gets to establish the view potential, which seems to be the case here, what is to prevent him from raising the assessment anywhere he wants? This tax cries out for some justice. Where is a good judge when you need him?


18 posted on 10/31/2005 6:04:36 PM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Well I was just shocked that the rural counties voted for Kerry while the Taxachusetts border and lake counties voted for Bush. The whole border with Vermont was 'Rat blue, while 2 out of 3 counties bordering Taxachusetts voted Bush. The escapees from Taxachusetts are not the main problem, but the college students and faculty in Keene, Hanover, Durham, etc help poison the well.

I really like NH, and I'm glad most of my property taxes stay local, and I resent the rural counties wanting equivalent benefits without paying taxes. They've been pushing to pick our pockets on the coast, so let their tax assessment reflect what they need to for taxes to pay for the services they want.


19 posted on 10/31/2005 6:14:29 PM PST by evolved_rage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
Note that it's the government's view, not that of the owner of what is being viewed. In no other market is the owner of the asset so penalized.
20 posted on 10/31/2005 6:15:17 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

24 posted on 10/31/2005 6:50:26 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

26 posted on 10/31/2005 7:04:06 PM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Well property taxes are based on property values

Can 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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32

I should really just kill myself.


30 posted on 10/31/2005 9:21:36 PM PST by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

BTTT!!!!!!


31 posted on 11/01/2005 3:06:51 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Yeah! You're back!


32 posted on 11/01/2005 3:35:10 AM PST by BJClinton (Caliphate? Letís Motivate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeorgiaDawg32
"Live Free or Die"?

Prove it, suckers.

33 posted on 11/01/2005 3:36:57 AM PST by Wormwood (Iš! Iš! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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".

34 posted on 11/01/2005 6:09:45 AM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (Have you visited http://c-pol.blogspot.com?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.


35 posted on 11/01/2005 7:26:28 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.
36 posted on 11/01/2005 7:32:25 AM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.


37 posted on 11/01/2005 7:32:49 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

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.


40 posted on 11/01/2005 7:41:56 AM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Has anyone noticed that when realtors and assessors talk about a view it always seems to be based on that being viewed having value in inverse proportion to people or artifacts viewed?


41 posted on 11/01/2005 8:04:43 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Has anyone noticed that when realtors and assessors talk about a view it always seems to be based on that being viewed having value in inverse proportion to people or artifacts viewed?

Not necessarily. Some of the most highly prized views in the San Francisco Bay Area are of the city skyline from afar, the Golden Gate, etc. but I do think you've noticed that, as nature becomes more scarce and as people get more alienated from it in life, it becomes a valued good. That the government should have an armed monopoly in managing that product is insane.

42 posted on 11/01/2005 8:25:48 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fat city
Houses in Netherlands used to have a "window tax" so they built very few windows into the houses.

I lived in Germany. There are never any closets built into homes and apartments, for the same reason.

43 posted on 11/01/2005 8:28:07 AM PST by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

I agree with your comments.


44 posted on 11/01/2005 8:35:38 AM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Go down the road aways and take the time to view the Lone Cypress, the most photographed site along the Pacific coast; that silent sentinel evokes the lonely isolation that lurks inside each of us, but no houses are built with a view of its mocking durability.

Maybe it is only after we have become resigned to the mess that people have made of the landscape that we want to capture just a small piece of its remembered or imagined glory for our own, to keep out the despoilers.

Back to San Francisco, maybe the allure lies in the recognition that, when all else fails, that bridge is a way to escape.


45 posted on 11/01/2005 10:05:04 AM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
It's so criminal, what is being done to property owners.

It's ambitious politicians and bureaucrats in cahoots with greedy developers using the force of government to their own ends and robbing those that are politically unconnected.

46 posted on 11/01/2005 12:07:53 PM PST by Lester Moore (islam's allah is Satan and is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44
The potential for abuse is staggering.

I certainly agree with you. The value of a view is entirely speculative, and would be a "weapon of mass appreciation" in the hands of an assessor.

47 posted on 11/01/2005 2:37:39 PM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"I hate property taxes"

You got me puzzled on that one. I understand about the "affordability factor" and agree but what is wrong with the property tax? I'd rather have mine a little high and not have to pay any stinkin sales or income tax. (This IS New Hampshire and by gum, I hope it stays that way.)

48 posted on 11/01/2005 3:44:11 PM PST by Past Your Eyes (Some people are too stupid to be ashamed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

The thing you forget about sales tax......it takes approval BY VOTE before collection begins. No sales tax can be collected without a vote of the people. And many sales taxes have sunset clauses which require voter approval for renewal. Income taxe proposals are fully open for the people whenever the legislature debates the procedure. People have a voice in the process, depending on access to their local politician etc.
But property taxes are arbitrarly set by a county assessor based on criteria such as the value of adjoining property, what adjoining property has sold for, improvements to that property or adjoining property, road access, school district etc. The property tax rate for school tax is subject to voter approval (in Missouri anyhow), but the assessor has sole final say on the value placed on a property. The taxpayer can challenge the assessment, but only after paying the tax in full but under protest. Then hearings are held. Hopefully enough affected land owners in a certain area cause enough commotion to get a rollback, although each individual property is a seperate challenge with a seperate hearing. But if the land in question is lightly populated and owned by just a few, typically rural landowners, challenges are hard to win.
Another tool in Missouri is the automatic re-assessment of property every 3 years. Our state has granted the county the ability to re-assess and raise property values automatically every 3 years. Even if there are no improvements in that period the assessor automatically increases the value by 5-10-15-30% depending on inflation, growth and demand of property etc.

Although property tax is the main way local and county governments gain operating revenue, and fund schools, the expansion of government services continues to require more funding. This insatiable appetite for raising taxes gives the government collecting those taxes too much leaway and opens the potential for abuse like the view tax outlined in this forum.
Unlike in the case of sales and income tax where large groups can organize and fight unfair taxation, property taxes can only be fought one land owner at a time. Private income paying one lawyer while the government uses everyones tax money as leverage to pay their lawyers makes the system stacked heavily in favor of government tyranny over private property rights. Abuse of individual rights by government can not be tolerated in any form.


49 posted on 11/01/2005 7:21:26 PM PST by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson