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 ...
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.
BTTT!!!!!!
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.
Worth repeating.
"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.
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.