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?
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.
"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.