Ever hear of a "View Tax"?

[Brock]

You probably have to be a lib to understand the thinking.

'View Tax' Triggers Revolt in Rural N.H.
Oct 31 6:20 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By KATHARINE WEBSTER
Associated Press Writer


ORFORD, N.H.


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.



State officials say there is no such thing as a "view tax" _ it is a "view factor," and it has always been a part of property assessments. The only change is that views have become so valuable in some towns that assessors are giving them a separate line on appraisal records.

The change has stirred passions in Orford, a town of 1,040 that overlooks the Connecticut River and has views of neighboring Vermont and the White Mountains.

One big reason the reassessment has alarmed townspeople in Orford and beyond is that housing prices _ and consequently property taxes _ are shooting up in New England because of an influx of vacation-home buyers and retirees willing to pay top dollar for beautiful views.

The Orford Board of Selectmen, of which Bischoff is chairman, voted in September to set aside the revaluation by Avitar Associates of New England until the Legislature comes up with objective standards for valuing views.

Critics complain, for example, that some town assessors assign fixed dollar values to certain types of views, while others multiply a home's base value by a "view factor."

Avitar president Gary Roberge acknowledged that assessing views is partly subjective and said that is why there is an appeals process. But he said Orford's revaluation was sound overall. "There's been a huge change in property values in this area," he said.

At a packed legislative hearing, Orford timberland owner Tom Thomson warned that unless the state acts, rising property taxes will force family farmers to sell to developers, permanently altering New Hampshire's rural character.

"We're going to drive the people off the land who have been living on it and working it for generations," Thomson said. "It's going to destroy our No. 1 industry: tourism."

Guy Petell, director of property appraisals for the state, is sympathetic. But real estate ads and sales prove that properties with views fetch a premium, and it would be unfair to homeowners without views to ignore that, Petell said.

"A piece of land on a side of a hill that overlooks a 50-mile or 100- mile radius is going to be worth more than the same piece of land overlooking an industrial complex or a landfill," he said.

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.

Home appraisals, whether in New Hampshire, Texas or California, are supposed to reflect a property's market value. Because the view and other aesthetic considerations affect market value, it is standard practice in the industry to take them into account.

Wayne Trout, president of the International Association of Assessing Officials, said it is unusual for assessors to assign a specific dollar value to the view. But he said the methods do not really matter as long as total assessed value accurately represents market value.

Trout, the assessor for Norfolk, Va., said the value of waterfront and water-view homes there is rising rapidly, leading to complaints similar to those in New Hampshire.

In Nevada, state law requires assessors to consider views, and Washoe County assessor Bob McGowan said ballooning property values on Lake Tahoe have contributed to protests against his view-ranking system. The state helped ease the pain this year by capping annual property tax increases on primary residences at 3 percent, an approach adopted years ago by voter initiative in Massachusetts and California.

New Hampshire Agriculture Commissioner Steve Taylor said the underlying problem is the "perversity" of the state's heavy reliance on property taxes. 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.

Retired engineer John Chandler objected when a revaluation doubled the value of his property in Hill because of its view of the White Mountains in the distance. Chandler noted that he does not own the view and cannot control it, and said it is increasingly obscured by air pollution.

Besides, he is legally blind.

"I'm not enjoying that view, at least not as much as Avitar thinks I should be," he said.

[Pitt Gorilla]

I'm either confused or must be a liberal then. Is this article suggesting that if people will pay more for a house because of its view that it should have a higher value? Stinkin' free-market libbies... :cuss:

BTW,
we recently paid more to live in a "nicer" neighborhood. I suppose we should complain.

[patteeu]

This seems to be the real problem:

New Hampshire Agriculture Commissioner Steve Taylor said the underlying problem is the "perversity" of the state's heavy reliance on property taxes.

As long as there are property taxes, no one ever really owns property.

[Radar Chief]

I'm either confused or must be a liberal then. Is this article suggesting that if people will pay more for a house because of its view that it should have a higher value? Stinkin' free-market libbies... :cuss:

BTW,
we recently paid more to live in a "nicer" neighborhood. I suppose we should complain.

I’d assume this “nicer house” has, or at least has access to, electricity, phone, water, sewer and paved roads lead’n to it?
Yea, that’s a justifiable comparison.
Sounds to me like dude built a shack on a hill and they want to tax’im like it’s the Hilton.

[Brock]

I'm either confused or must be a liberal then. .

Are you paying a view tax? Would you be willing to pay a view tax?

[Pittsie]

I’d assume this “nicer house” has, or at least has access to, electricity, phone, water, sewer and paved roads lead’n to it?
Yea, that’s a justifiable comparison.
Sounds to me like dude built a shack on a hill and they want to tax’im like it’s the Hilton.

If the value of his property, in and of itself, is only $22K he's definately living in a shack.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Are you paying a view tax? Would you be willing to pay a view tax?No, I wouldn't. Like I said, I'm probably confused. If the tax on the books is specifically noted as a view tax, then that is terrible. If your property value increases due to the view, that makes sense.

[Taco John]

Got to find some way to fund all the crap that people think government needs to run. People accept property tax as legitimate, and so it will always have the leering eye of the money hungry politician scrutinizing it. The only thing worth really noting here is that anyone thinks one side is worse than the other on the issue of taxation. The Republicans, as we can clearly see, are just as big a spenders as the Democrats. The only difference is the Democrats want to charge ourselves for it now with higher taxes. The Republicans want to charge our children for it later (presumably with higher taxes).

It stands to reason that if your property has a view, it's worth more on the market than a house without a view. If you're going to accept property tax as a legitimate tax, I don't see what the problem is here.

[Brock]

No, I wouldn't. Like I said, I'm probably confused. If the tax on the books is specifically noted as a view tax, then that is terrible. If your property value increases due to the view, that makes sense.

The only change is that views have become so valuable in some towns that assessors are giving them a separate line on appraisal records.

You're right, it is terrible.

[Brock]

What's next? A tax on how many windows your house has? If I live next door to a hot chick, am I taxed on that too? :rolleyes:

[Chief Faithful]

What's next? A tax on how many windows your house has? If I live next door to a hot chick, am I taxed on that too? :rolleyes:

That would be a 'sin' tax.

[Taco John]

Do they increase your property value? Apparently you're fine with property taxes, so I'll move on that assumption. The basic concept of property tax is that you are taxed based on the value of your home. So it your windows add value to your home, then you are taxed that amount. If your view adds value to your home, then you are taxed that amount. It's doubtful that the hot chick next door adds any value to your house.

What's hard about this concept for you?

Doesn't it stand to reason that if your property has a view, it's worth more on the market than a house without a view.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of property tax. I think it's a farce. But it's a farce that society has accepted, so nothing I can do but pay it. But like I said, if you're going to accept property tax as a legitimate tax, I don't see what the problem is here.

It's a simple equation:
increased house value = increased tax levy

[Swanman]

If your property value increases due to the view, that makes sense.

That's what I was thinking. When looking at houses a year ago, I'd have to pay more for a house with a lake view and golf course view. If the house is more valuable, then you pay more tax, it's a function of mathematics.

But to have a separately separated "view tax" as part of the property taxes is goofy, mainly because you have no basis to value the view for the taxes.

[patteeu]

Do they increase your property value? Apparently you're fine with property taxes, so I'll move on that assumption. The basic concept of property tax is that you are taxed based on the value of your home. So it your windows add value to your home, then you are taxed that amount. If your view adds value to your home, then you are taxed that amount. It's doubtful that the hot chick next door adds any value to your house.

What's hard about this concept for you?

Doesn't it stand to reason that if your property has a view, it's worth more on the market than a house without a view.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of property tax. I think it's a farce. But it's a farce that society has accepted, so nothing I can do but pay it. But like I said, if you're going to accept property tax as a legitimate tax, I don't see what the problem is here.

It's a simple equation:
increased house value = increased tax levy

Do you see property taxes as legitimate?

[Radar Chief]

It's a simple equation:
increased house value = increased tax levy

Ah, but there’s the rub. What was done to increase the value of this particular house? I’d assume the “view” is the same as what it was years ago, why does it suddenly increase the value?

[Pitt Gorilla]

Ah, but there’s the rub. What was done to increase the value of this particular house? I’d assume the “view” is the same as what it was years ago, why does it suddenly increase the value?Increased demand? That would be my only guess.

[patteeu]

I'm betting that you don't get a tax break for painting your house purple, allowing your yard to get overrun by weeds, and putting a junker up on blocks in the front yard.

[Uatu]

I wish that the gubment were required to mail everyone out a summary of all the taxes they paid in a year at the end of each calendar year.

Perhaps then people would begin to realize how much they are truly dishing out to the tax-happy robber barons.

[Uatu]

I'm betting that you don't get a tax break for painting your house purple, allowing your yard to get overrun by weeds, and putting a junker up on blocks in the front yard.

What if my neighbor is repulsive, obese, and works in her garden on hand and knee, in what can only be described as a mu-mu, should I get a tax break for that? Hell, the county should be paying ME money to live next to her.

[Radar Chief]

Increased demand? That would be my only guess.

Increased demand for more tax revenue? I’d agree.
Not much else could explain away a 5X increase in taxable value.

[Radar Chief]

I'm betting that you don't get a tax break for painting your house purple, allowing your yard to get overrun by weeds, and putting a junker up on blocks in the front yard.

What ‘bout a tax deferment for lack of utilities? :shrug:

[RP_McMurphy]

What's the song Taxman?

Taxman will tax anything, anywhere at anytime to raise revunue.

[Taco John]

Do you see property taxes as legitimate?


The only tax I see as legitimate is consumption tax.

[patteeu]

The only tax I see as legitimate is consumption tax.

Although I haven't given it enough thought, that sounds about right to me. :toast:

[Uatu]

This seems to be the real problem:



As long as there are property taxes, no one ever really owns property.

:thumb:

[Brock]

Increased demand? That would be my only guess.

Whether or not a view is attractive is completely subjective.

The value of a property should be calculated by hard data. Period.

And Taco John, I doubt very much that you refuse to pay property tax, so you apparently do view them as legitimate.

[Taco John]

Whether or not a view is attractive is completely subjective.

The value of a property should be calculated by hard data. Period.

And Taco John, I doubt very much that you refuse to pay property tax, so you apparently do view them as legitimate.


I prefer not to end up in jail. The fact that I pay them, like everybody else, doesn't change my views of their legitimacy.

If that's the standard you want to go by, I doubt very much that you have to pay a "View Tax."

[Taco John]

Hey Brock, do you agree with a gas tax? How do you avoid paying it if you don't?

[Danush]

....The only thing worth really noting here is that anyone thinks one side is worse than the other on the issue of taxation. The Republicans, as we can clearly see, are just as big a spenders as the Democrats. The only difference is the Democrats want to charge ourselves for it now with higher taxes. The Republicans want to charge our children for it later (presumably with higher taxes)....

If you are stating that, currently, both parties are being fiscally irresponsible then you are correct. If you are stating there is no real difference between the two parties, I believe you are mistaken.

If low taxes and decreased growth in government expenditures are an important issue to you (which as a libertarian they are for me,) then one side is definitely preferable to the other. Not ideal, certainly; but definitely preferable.

[Brock]

Hey Brock, do you agree with a gas tax? How do you avoid paying it if you don't?

Hey Taco, have you ever even seen the inside of your county assessor's office? Have you ever fought a rise in your property taxes?

[Logical]

OK, I am by no means a liberal on taxes, but it is called property tax because it is based on the value of your property. Now if the assessment was based on something other than what you can sell your property for then I completely disagree with the methodology. However, if it is based on what you can sell your property for then this makes sense to me, of course the property should also have its value lowered for all the amenities (like plumbing) it does not have because it lowers the lands value.

[Logical]

Are you paying a view tax? Would you be willing to pay a view tax?Yes I most certainly do, I also pay more tax because the exact same view in California is on land that is much more valuable than land in Missouri or in Kansas. My home sits on less than a 1/4 acre but the land not including the house is worth $600K (what an empty lot my land's size sells for) which is why my home is now worth almost a million dollars, when I only paid less than $600K for it 4 years ago.

[Taco John]

If you are stating that, currently, both parties are being fiscally irresponsible then you are correct. If you are stating there is no real difference between the two parties, I believe you are mistaken.

If low taxes and decreased growth in government expenditures are an important issue to you (which as a libertarian they are for me,) then one side is definitely preferable to the other. Not ideal, certainly; but definitely preferable.


I just disagree. I don't see one side being better than the other at all, certainly not on taxes. I see one side that wants to tax me now, and one that wants to tax my kids later. I don't see either side doing anything to cut budgets or limit government at all.

You'd have a point if Bush cut spending, and then cut taxes... Or vice versa. As a libertarian, there's nothing preferable about a party that raises spending while cutting taxes. That's a shallow PR trick that only dopes will fall for.

[Logical]

The only change is that views have become so valuable in some towns that assessors are giving them a separate line on appraisal records. You're right, it is terrible. OK I missed that separate line, we might have that out here, I have never really read it that closely.

[Logical]

Ah, but there’s the rub. What was done to increase the value of this particular house? I’d assume the “view” is the same as what it was years ago, why does it suddenly increase the value?That is easy, it is because you can sell the land for more now than you could 20 years ago. That is simply a function of inflation and market forces. People in a consumer society prize thing like view more as they have more money to spend and are willing to pay more for such a view. The tax is supposed to be based on what you are willing to pay for the property. To address Swanman's issue even if the line is separate you can assess the value of a view based on what similar properties with and without the view sell for and the delta is the value for that tax.

[Danush]

I just disagree. I don't see one side being better than the other at all, certainly not on taxes. I see one side that wants to tax me now, and one that wants to tax my kids later. I don't see either side doing anything to cut budgets or limit government at all.

You'd have a point if Bush cut spending, and then cut taxes... Or vice versa. As a libertarian, there's nothing preferable about a party that raises spending while cutting taxes. That's a shallow PR trick that only dopes will fall for.

I'd agree that, on the surface, it appears both sides have gone mad. The distinction I see is this. Dems appear willing to raise taxes at the drop of a hat, to fund both shorter term projects like recovery from Katrina and Iraq and longer term projects such as more generous social and entitlement programs. Reps appear, certainly, to have acquiesced to voters' expectation of a welfare state and they seem willing to be reckless with short term expenditures like Katrina and Iraq. The difference is in their perspective on long-term entitlement and social spending; Reps seem more willing then Dems to curtail growth, and to curb expansion of such programs. The costs of those programs, over time, will pale Katrina and Iraq over time.

That said, the fiscal irresponsibility currently demonstrated by both sides is indeed disconcerting. However, Dems seem willing to raise taxes without any serious thought given to reducing long term growth and spending. Meanwhile, Reps are clearly reckless in the short term, but seem be be banking that econmomic growth will produce increased revenues to eventually pay down the deficit and eventually the national debt. It worked in the 1990s--largely due to Congressional restraint to curtail growth; it remains to be seen whether or not it can be done again.

Fiscal restraint by Congress is easier to imagine from the right, rather than the left side of the isle. You may consider it a shallow PR trick, but who the dope is depends on one's understanding of how the economy actually works as opposed to whether one has been persuaded by political rhetoric aimed at our emotions ("we are mortgaging the future of our children.") Partisan ideologues from both sides of the isle, and phony libertarian types as well, have difficulty grasping that.

[Taco John]

Hey Taco, have you ever even seen the inside of your county assessor's office? Have you ever fought a rise in your property taxes?


Actually, no. I've only been a homeowner since 2002, and just received my first property assessment. The rise in price was in line with what our property value has raised, according to our latest appraisal.

So given that paying property tax is the law, and I don't really have a reasonable complaint that will affect the bottom line, I figured I'd avoid going to jail and do what everybody else is doing and pay it. If that makes me a lesser person, so be it. I still disagree with it in principle. I think that the government spends too much. I think their budget should be limited to consumption.

[Taco John]

Meanwhile, Reps are clearly reckless in the short term, but seem be be banking that econmomic growth will produce increased revenues to eventually pay down the deficit and eventually the national debt.



In Vegas they call that gambling.

[Radar Chief]

That is easy, it is because you can sell the land for more now than you could 20 years ago. That is simply a function of inflation and market forces. People in a consumer society prize thing like view more as they have more money to spend and are willing to pay more for such a view. The tax is supposed to be based on what you are willing to pay for the property. To address Swanman's issue even if the line is separate you can assess the value of a view based on what similar properties with and without the view sell for and the delta is the value for that tax.


You’re miss’n my point Jim. I’m not arguing that property values don’t increase. I’m just pointing out how fishy it is when a properties taxable value increases +5X in one year based solely, apparently since there is no access to utilities, on a subjective criteria like a “view”.

Yes I most certainly do, I also pay more tax because the exact same view in California is on land that is much more valuable than land in Missouri or in Kansas. My home sits on less than a 1/4 acre but the land not including the house is worth $600K (what an empty lot my land's size sells for) which is why my home is now worth almost a million dollars, when I only paid less than $600K for it 4 years ago.

Good for you, I’m glad you do well. My own investment is considerably more modest, but has increased in value since I first purchased. You could also take my house, plop it on some waterfront at, say, Grand Lake O the Cherokees and it’d increase the value 5-10 fold. I have at least a basic understanding of how property value works.
And that’s exactly why I find a +5X increase in a single year fishy on it’s own. Using something as subjective as “view” as justification when the same view has probably been there for several years and it’s begin’n to smell like week old left out in the sun fish.
I’m assuming this guys only action plan can be to find out what similar land in the same area has sold for recently and try to fight’em with info. Otherwise he might as well grab his ankles and pay for a +5X tax increase for a shack with no access to utilities.

[Radar Chief]

In Vegas they call that gambling.

On “Wall Street” it’s called investing. :shrug:

[Logical]

You’re miss’n my point Jim. I’m not arguing that property values don’t increase. I’m just pointing out how fishy it is when a properties taxable value increases +5X in one year based solely, apparently since there is no access to utilities, on a subjective criteria like a “view”.



Good for you, I’m glad you do well. My own investment is considerably more modest, but has increased in value since I first purchased. You could also take my house, plop it on some waterfront at, say, Grand Lake O the Cherokees and it’d increase the value 5-10 fold. I have at least a basic understanding of how property value works.
And that’s exactly why I find a +5X increase in a single year fishy on it’s own. Using something as subjective as “view” as justification when the same view has probably been there for several years and it’s begin’n to smell like week old left out in the sun fish.
I’m assuming this guys only action plan can be to find out what similar land in the same area has sold for recently and try to fight’em with info. Otherwise he might as well grab his ankles and pay for a +5X tax increase for a shack with no access to utilities.Thanks for the reply, and I better understand your point now. I can only speculate that his addition of the shack caused them to actually go out and visit the property for the first time in years and the assessor (likely someone different than years ago took note of the view and based the reassessment on that. If that is not the case then I too do not see how a jump in a single year is justified.

[go bowe]

Thanks for the reply, and I better understand your point now. I can only speculate that his addition of the shack caused them to actually go out and visit the property for the first time in years and the assessor (likely someone different than years ago took note of the view and based the reassessment on that. If that is not the case then I too do not see how a jump in a single year is justified.i suspect you're right about a reassessment not being done for awhile...

but it is entirely possible that the price of land in new hampshire with a beautiful view has gone up many times over in the past year or two...

nh is not that long a drive away from the large new england metropoli (what the hell is the plural of metropolis?), and there are plenty of people who can afford to pay whatever the view value is...

increased demand + decreasing supplies = large increase in property values...

but i'm no economist...

[Radar Chief]

i suspect you're right about a reassessment not being done for awhile...

but it is entirely possible that the price of land in new hampshire with a beautiful view has gone up many times over in the past year or two...

nh is not that long a drive away from the large new england metropoli (what the hell is the plural of metropolis?), and there are plenty of people who can afford to pay whatever the view value is...

increased demand + decreasing supplies = large increase in property values...

but i'm no economist...

I once overheard some new workers in the break room talk’n ‘bout a coin one of them had found, an old penny. One was tell’n the other to go have it checked out, “could be worth hundreds $$$, I’ve seen it before.” After hearing this I had to interject. I used to collect coins and knew that unless he had some civil war era piece, it was probably worth no more than ‘bout $3.00 max, depending on circulation, and then only if he could find someone that would give him that amount for it. Until such a time, it was worth a penny. They didn’t like hear’n it, but it’s the truth.
This land is similar, an appraiser can put any value they want on it but if you can only get someone to pay, say, $20K for it that’s all it’s worth.
In the end, I’d assume this guys only course is to find out what land has sold for recently in the same area and work from there.

[go bowe]

I once overheard some new workers in the break room talk’n ‘bout a coin one of them had found, an old penny. One was tell’n the other to go have it checked out, “could be worth hundreds $$$, I’ve seen it before.” After hearing this I had to interject. I used to collect coins and knew that unless he had some civil war era piece, it was probably worth no more than ‘bout $3.00 max, depending on circulation, and then only if he could find someone that would give him that amount for it. Until such a time, it was worth a penny. They didn’t like hear’n it, but it’s the truth.
This land is similar, an appraiser can put any value they want on it but if you can only get someone to pay, say, $20K for it that’s all it’s worth.
In the end, I’d assume this guys only course is to find out what land has sold for recently in the same area and work from there.i could use a few of those $3 pennies about now...

everything you say is quite correct, but my guess is that recent sales with similar "views" are already part of the assessment process (which might explain the dramatic increase on the value of the land - not the value of the cabin on the land)...



btw, i could use a few civil war coins too...

any idea where to find some?

(i'm kidding, i'm kidding)

[jcl-kcfan2]

This seems to be the real problem:



As long as there are property taxes, no one ever really owns property.


rep

[Logical]

...
In the end, I’d assume this guys only course is to find out what land has sold for recently in the same area and work from there.Exactly, if he can find land (no shack needed) that has sold with a similar view and it was significantly lower than his appraised tax value then he can possibly get a reduction. The other thing he can do is pay a professional appraiser to assess the properties value and then use that to challenge the assessment tax value.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Exactly, if he can find land (no shack needed) that has sold with a similar view and it was significantly lower than his appraised tax value then he can possibly get a reduction. The other thing he can do is pay a professional appraiser to assess the properties value and then use that to challenge the assessment tax value.
Exactly.