NH's View TAX (Manchester, Wolfeboro, Plainfield: sales, assessor, house)

[buck naked]

just saw a blip on tonight's WMUR news -

a woman in Marlow has seen her property value rise more than a quarter million dollars in the past 4 years

in 2004, her property was assessed at 75K - she has a view of the Lempster wind farm (you know, the turbines like the ones nobody wants built at Cape Cod)

her modest home sits on an unpaved road full of pot holes. She is unable to get cable service or internet service as it is not provided in that area.

However, that did not stop the town from raising her home's value to $350K, because of her view. she is high up, so she has a view of trees and turbines.



the view tax should be illegal.


It all started when they changed the taxing across the state a couple of decades ago. Waterfront property already had a higher value BECAUSE it was waterfront property. Now they have a tax rate that is 10 X's + higher than the rest of the towns. Wolfeboro is a perfect example. How the townies rejoiced when their tax rates went down because the waterfront properties taxes skyrocketed. After all, it was only summer people that were affected. Now, they're not celebrating as much because they are being hit with the view tax as well. If you can see water in between the buildings from your property than you get the view tax too.

[BF66389]

I can see how the assessed value of a piece of property on the water or with a stellar view would be higher (ie, a home near nothing is worth less than a home on the water...or a home with a great view of sunset, etc). But having a specific additional tax for it...and applied in cases where the property is not actually worth more...is stupid.

[buck naked]

How do you value a view? It's all subjective. a view of a "name mountain," such as Mount Washington or others in the famed Presidential Range, is usually worth more than a view of a less-famous peak. Also, 90 degrees of view is better than 45, and a river and hills are usually worth more than hills alone.


there is a "view manual" the assessors use showing a range of vistas rated middling to spectacular. There was a "300" rated property, whose view had a barn up close and a mountain in the distance. that little bit of the horizon was enough view to triple the land's value -- a difference of $96,000 or more for an average property in a place such as Plainfield.

a "500" view has a lot more horizon and distance. It would add $192,000 to the same property.

a "600" view, which is a panorama of mountains and receding hills, means an increase of $240,000 just because of the view.

The formula sucks pond water.

across the state people have objected and gone to court. In most cases, the judges ruled the view tax as subjective and ordered the taxes reduced. All of the cases are in appeal.

sadly farmers that work the lands rarely notice the view, except to see sunrise or sunsets. Maybe the next step is to tax sunset views.

better not give them any ideas.

[lreznick]

A view tax doesn't make sense to me at all. I don't care what some assessor (commissar) thinks is or ought to be a worthwhile view. If the tax is a percentage of the assessed value of the house and that assessed value is based on the market price of the house at the time of purchase, then the market decided that house's value. With the property tax based on a percentage of that market price, if the market values the house's view, surroundings, general condition, or any other factors, then by paying more for it the tax as a percentage would reflect that greater value. Any basis for assessment that is not market based is, therefore, arbitrary.

[buck naked]

so true - there is no way this woman can sell her house for $350K....it's not worth $200K considering it's location and amenities.

IMO if a town over values a home because of the views and the house is not worth that much on the market, then the town should have to buy the home from the owner at the assessed value. After all, they've been making $$ for years on an inflated value.

believe me. nobody in their right mind would consider that home worth $350K.


Nice View Proves Costly To Gilsum Homeowner - Money News Story - WMUR Manchester

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by buck naked

How do you value a view? It's all subjective. a view of a "name mountain," such as Mount Washington or others in the famed Presidential Range, is usually worth more than a view of a less-famous peak. Also, 90 degrees of view is better than 45, and a river and hills are usually worth more than hills alone.

That's my point...it shouldn't be based on some "formula" it should be based on actual "what this home could reasonably expect to sell for".

What I was indicating is that typically a home with a view or on the water or some other special/desirable lot feature will sell for more on the open market; but this is a town-by-town, area-by-area situation and should be based on the recent sales prices of comparable homes in a similar situation.

Likewise, if someone has some undesirable feature (view of garbage dump for example)...value should be adjusted accordingly.

[GraniteStater]

I agree with your points, Buck Naked. However, I have seen properties with views of the national forest on top of hills that do not have higher than average property taxes compared to properties that do not have a view at all. I think it also depends on the assessor as well. All assessors can use different formulas to determine the appraised value of the property. Every town has a different equalized tax rate as well. So, some property owners might get dinged more severely than others depending on geographical location.

[buck naked]

That's my point...it shouldn't be based on some "formula" it should be based on actual "what this home could reasonably expect to sell for".

exactly, remove the view tax of $100K and you would have the true market value of the home...possibly.

[Brave Stranger]

So........what if I'm blind ? Why am I paying a "view tax" ? I can't see what they are taxing me on. Lol, where's my exemption ?

[lreznick]

Originally Posted by BF66389

That's my point...it shouldn't be based on some "formula" it should be based on actual "what this home could reasonably expect to sell for".

What I was indicating is that typically a home with a view or on the water or some other special/desirable lot feature will sell for more on the open market; but this is a town-by-town, area-by-area situation and should be based on the recent sales prices of comparable homes in a similar situation.

I agree with the area-by-area perspective completely. However, if there are no comparable homes nearby and the property's last sale price was long ago, one could apply some regular formula such as a rate of inflation for evaluating the change in value over time but it would have to be market based, not based on variable opinions.

Originally Posted by BF66389

Likewise, if someone has some undesirable feature (view of garbage dump for example)...value should be adjusted accordingly.

The undesirable feature would impact the market value, so it should still be based on market value, not on a commissar's opinion or on numerous arbitrary, unvotable, unanswerable regulations. The market of potential buyers would know the value they're willing to pay. All else, including the seller in the absence of buyers, would be an estimate -- more likely a fond hope.