Skip to comments.'View Tax' Triggers Revolt in Rural N.H.
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 ...
Houses in Netherlands used to have a "window tax" so they built very few windows into the houses.
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.
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.
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.
Floridas save our home ammendment looks better and better everyday
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.
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).
What if the owner is blind?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can government truly accurately access the value of property that's not on the market to be sold?
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.
I should really just kill myself.
Yeah! You're back!
Prove it, suckers.
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".
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.
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.
If you read viewshed or view tax, run for the hills, or perhaps a cave.
"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.
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.
I lived in Germany. There are never any closets built into homes and apartments, for the same reason.
I agree with your comments.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.