Does Anyone Else Have The "ViewTax"?

Ductape · Sep 2, 2006

Within the past few years, towns here in New Hampshire have been charging what is commonly referred to as "The View Tax". I'm wondering if other states have the same, or is it just New Hampshires government that has run amuck ? What it amounts to, is , if your house is on a hill, and therefore, you have what might be considered a nice view...... your property tax increases tremendously. In theory, a home with a nice view would be more desireable, and therefore your property is worth more in resale. It would seem unconstitutional on its face...... New Hampshire is mostly hills and mountains. It would be difficult to have a house anywhere in the state thats not on somewhat of a hill. I understand there are plenty of residents in the state who's property value has gone up TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars or more, in just a single town revaluation..... and of course, their property tax has increased accordingly. I'm wondering if any other states have a View Tax ??

Thomas · Sep 2, 2006

Good morning Ductape.
View tax...what will they think of next.
I live in Lebanon,NH and the city does penalize something that should be free...if I cut several more trees I shall be paying view tax.
Hope your not paying side walk tax as we are...grrrrrr!!

A local farmer appealing the view tax in court,for he's paying view tax on the land he already owns...double whammie.

Paddy · Sep 2, 2006

My lake front land has high taxes. And you better bet it's because it has a nice view. Ocean front same gig, good view=worth more $$=>more taxes.

I think what you are seeing is how state governments are trying to tax land at real values. Ag land has always been taxed as "undeveloped" and thus low rates. This has been true for all undevelpoed land for the most part. It does not take long to see a 40 ac farm paying a diff tax rate than the future site of the next walmart, both vacant.

CtRick · Sep 2, 2006

My town doesn't have view taxes but the recent boom in big money houses is killing poeple like me. Two new developments near my home, one across the street and one at the end of the my road have dramatically increased the property values. My taxes went from $6000 a year (which was bad) to $10,000 a year, in one year, just because I live near million dollar homes. And even more expensive homes have been built since the last reval. Sure, my property is worth more than double what I paid for it, but I planned on staying here the rest of my life. I don't know what the solution is, but there has to be a better way to tax property.

Rick

_RaT_ · Sep 2, 2006

Ductape said:
Within the past few years, towns here in New Hampshire have been charging what is commonly referred to as "The View Tax". I'm wondering if other states have the same, or is it just New Hampshires government that has run amuck ? What it amounts to, is , if your house is on a hill, and therefore, you have what might be considered a nice view...... your property tax increases tremendously. In theory, a home with a nice view would be more desireable, and therefore your property is worth more in resale. It would seem unconstitutional on its face...... New Hampshire is mostly hills and mountains. It would be difficult to have a house anywhere in the state thats not on somewhat of a hill. I understand there are plenty of residents in the state who's property value has gone up TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars or more, in just a single town revaluation..... and of course, their property tax has increased accordingly. I'm wondering if any other states have a View Tax ??

When I went up to Oregon for a fishing trip on the Rogue river, I asked the guide why the homes on the river were up for sale and if they go fast. He said those homes have been for sale awhile and the folks around the area won't buy them because the tax is just way to high. The reason was the location and view of the river. Where I am from, the value of your home is based on the purchase price. If you have lived in your home since proposition 13 was voted in, then the value of your home is based on that cost which is quite small. There are folks with homes valued over a million dollars that still pay property tax based on its value back in 1978 (with a very small yearly increase), often under $1000 a year. It protects the older folks from getting hammered with property tax increases on homes they bought back in the old days when they were well under $30,000.

RonMar · Sep 2, 2006

There are many tax reform movements afoot in many areas to break the relationship of property tax to sale value. In many places tax base assesments are spinning out of control as they are not only based on the value and improvements that you have made to your home, but on comparable properties and in particular the sale price of those properties in your area. This can be an issue if you get a large influx of money from elsewhere, particularly somewhere where housing is very expensive. Those people think nothing of throwing down $200K on a house that isn't worth $100K, because based on what they are used to back home, that price is a steal. And of course, the seller isn't going to object at getting their high asking price met without a haggle.

MikeBurr · Sep 2, 2006

If you are blind, do you still have to pay the tax?

BillyP · Sep 2, 2006

MikeBurr said:
If you are blind, do you still have to pay the tax?

Now that's funny

8561 · Sep 2, 2006

MikeBurr said:
If you are blind, do you still have to pay the tax?

I know it was a joke, but the answer is, of course you do, for good reason. I live in NH and I'm as anti-tax as anyone I know. However, if property taxes are based on property valuation, shouldn't a piece of land with a view, which is obviously worth more than without a view, be assessed properly based on that view. For example, I live at the bottom of a hill at the start of a small development of fairly nice homes. Lot sizes run about 2-5 acres. The land portion of the tax assessment for all on my street is identical assuming the lot is roughly the same size (the 5 acre pieces are paying slightly more than the 2.5-3 acre pieces). However, if you go up my road 1/4 mile the view is spectacular. Views for miles including lakes and a ski mountain. If all the lots on the street were the same size, and all were vacant, wouldn't the view lots have a higher real estate value? Of course they would, and therefore they should be paying tax based on the actual value of the land.

BillyP · Sep 2, 2006

8561 said:
I know it was a joke, but the answer is, of course you do, for good reason. I live in NH and I'm as anti-tax as anyone I know. However, if property taxes are based on property valuation, shouldn't a piece of land with a view, which is obviously worth more than without a view, be assessed properly based on that view. For example, I live at the bottom of a hill at the start of a small development of fairly nice homes. Lot sizes run about 2-5 acres. The land portion of the tax assessment for all on my street is identical assuming the lot is roughly the same size (the 5 acre pieces are paying slightly more than the 2.5-3 acre pieces). However, if you go up my road 1/4 mile the view is spectacular. Views for miles including lakes and a ski mountain. If all the lots on the street were the same size, and all were vacant, wouldn't the view lots have a higher real estate value? Of course they would, and therefore they should be paying tax based on the actual value of the land.

The answer is yes, for real estate value but no for taxes. Besides property taxes being a ripoff, I look at it another way...

If I pay X amount of dollars from some property, I should have to pay X amount of tax as long as I own it. I can't help if some yahoo decides my property is worth more a year later.