Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The New Jersey Constitution does not outlaw progressive taxation and that's the big problem. But at least in NJ, the local residents get to vote on municipal bond proposals. This is why students attend older schools and there are very few high school swimming pools. Scroll down in the link below for a sampling of 2010 NJ school bond proposals- most failed. The residents do want to control education spending but they are stymied by the teachers union and their stooges in Trenton.
Speaking of fair, I think the LUCT is a reasonable compromise for fairness.
Given that "current use" land consumes basically zero town services (doesn't produce extra trash, call the police, add cars on the road, send kids to school) if anything the tax collected on vacant land is already too high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abnfdc
If you want to see the "unfair" side of current use, see that it requires 10 acres outside of the developed portion. There should not be a minimum.
I can see some justification for setting some sort minimum, both because larger contiguous tracts of woodland is part of the goal of CU and also because the alternative would result in having to keep careful track of the unused portion of small lots; every time a homeowner made a small change (cut a tree, built a garden shed, etc) there'd have to be a survey so they could adequately be billed for the land use change tax (LUCT).
I could see lobbying to change the current use minimum to something like 2x or 3x each town's minimum lot size. That could both help some residents with smaller lots get a tax break, and also induce towns to bump up their lot size ordinance.
A huge amount of recreational land in the state is owned by private citizens and is in current use.
No it's not. That is what they want you to believe. You generally have to go way up north to get access to large tracts of current use land. Most private landowners will not allow access to their current use property.
Quote:
With a conservation easement, you're essentially giving away any and all current/future rights to the land for you and your heirs.
Putting it in a conservation easement achieves the very objective of current use - restriction from development. Owners can still use it - they just can't develop it. If they want retain the right to develop it - they should pay the same rate as others do that pay full taxes. There is are many, many property owners who own large tracts of land outside of current use who have no plans to develop it.
Given that "current use" land consumes basically zero town services (doesn't produce extra trash, call the police, add cars on the road, send kids to school) if anything the tax collected on vacant land is already too high.
You're getting there. Vacant lots of any size don't use services (they do to some extent - road maintenance, should make contributions toward town welfare programs, fire dept., etc). CU assessments are ridiculous and allow owners to leach off other taxpayers in town. The program is state mandated but locally funded - which is likely unconstitutional. A state mandated program needs to be funded with revenue collected statewide (like a sales, income, or statewide property tax that shares the burden among all people).
Claiming owners are taking the RA but posting their land anyway? Citation Needed.
The real enemy is the folk who want towns to offer more services and want themselves to receive more entitlements, and are willing to vote in tax increases and entirely new taxes (like the attempt at an income-tax-in-all-but-name under the guise of FMLA) to get the benefits they feel they deserve to have everybody else pay for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
No it's not. That is what they want you to believe. You generally have to go way up north to get access to large tracts of current use land. Most private landowners will not allow access to their current use property.
I'm in Hillsborough county, not "way up north", and aside from farms and woodlots being logged, very little of the current use land in my town is posted. On average, a third of the lots in current use in Cheshire & Hillsborough counties take the Recreation Adjustment, Sullivan, Merrimack & strafford come in at +40% of CU being open to recreation.
Now if you're claiming that owners are taking the Recreation Adjustment and then posting their land anyway, I'm going to need more than your word on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cub 305.03 Posting of Land.
Land which has been granted an additional 20% reduction for recreation use pursuant to Cub 309.01 shall not be posted to prohibit activities described under RSA 79-A:4, II, unless such posting has beenapproved by the local assessing officials.
(b) If, the landowner posts the land without the approval of the local assessing officials, the 20% reduction shall not be allowed at the subsequent April 1st assessment period.
So if you're seeing this, and worried about your tax bill, go raise a stink with your local assessing officials
make current use property owners pay their fair share and you will see everyone else's taxes go down.
Suppose for a moment you get the change you want, but instead of paying higher property taxes the land is put into a conservation easement. So no additional taxes. What's the next step?
Perhaps the next step is the place to start.
The premise of your argument is that if you get the change you want, the owners of the land will simply pay more in taxes. People are good at finding ways to avoid paying taxes, I have no doubt that would be the case here, too.
The real problem is spending. $15k / student / year is insane. Getting that under control is a better place to invest effort than hoping there's a large group of people willing, able, and happy to pay far more in taxes so others can pay less in taxes.
Whether it's a change in current use, or an income tax, or a sales tax, or any of the other schemes to convince people there's a way to collect more in taxes from other people, if spending isn't controlled, no amount of taxes will ever be enough, and the taxman will always come back to you for more. It's better to solve the actual problem (out of control spending), rather than to just get others to shoulder a bigger portion of the actual problem.
The real enemy is the folk who want towns to offer more services and want themselves to receive more entitlements, and are willing to vote in tax increases and entirely new taxes (like the attempt at an income-tax-in-all-but-name under the guise of FMLA) to get the benefits they feel they deserve to have everybody else pay for.
I'm in Hillsborough county, not "way up north", and aside from farms and woodlots being logged, very little of the current use land in my town is posted. On average, a third of the lots in current use in Cheshire & Hillsborough counties take the Recreation Adjustment, Sullivan, Merrimack & strafford come in at +40% of CU being open to recreation.
Now if you're claiming that owners are taking the Recreation Adjustment and then posting their land anyway, I'm going to need more than your word on that.
So if you're seeing this, and worried about your tax bill, go raise a stink with your local assessing officials
I have to chuckle with your responses because you are repeating the same arguments made by proponents of current use - when the realities of the program are much different. Where are you getting these recreational percentages from? What land in your town is in current use and how do you know if it is open for use (or not open for use)? Go out and try to find land in current use you can use that is not part of a park or designated use area. And you have to ask the landowners permission to use it - it's not like you can just go out and trespass.
I'd like to know where you are getting your statistics from please...
Suppose for a moment you get the change you want, but instead of paying higher property taxes the land is put into a conservation easement. So no additional taxes. What's the next step?
The next step is that some will put their land in a conservation easement and others will not. Those that will not will pay their fair share of property taxes thereby reducing the tax burden upon others who are currently paying their share for their benefit.
As far as spending and rising costs - the town meeting system works fine for me. What does not work for me is school funding. I think the vast majority of NH residents agree that has to change and with this new school voucher system currently being voted on it has major implications for property taxes to balloon.
Common law in New Hampshire extends the privilege of public access to private lands (Unless posted, etc)
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
I have to chuckle with your responses because you are repeating the same arguments made by proponents of current use - when the realities of the program are much different. Where are you getting these recreational percentages from?
. . .
I'd like to know where you are getting your statistics from please...
What land in your town is in current use and how do you know if it is open for use (or not open for use)? Go out and try to find land in current use you can use that is not part of a park or designated use area. And you have to ask the landowners permission to use it - it's not like you can just go out and trespass.
Assuming you're in a rural part of town (as I am), and the land is not posted and isn't clearly curtilage (e.g. somebody's mowed yard or horse paddock), you absolutely can "just go out" and it is not trespassing.
That's not to say that if you are doing more than just passing through that you shouldn't be polite and contact the landowner, but legally if the land isn't curtilage nor posted, you do not "have to ask the landowners permission to" hike across privately owned, unposted, property, even absent any sort of "easement" or formal agreement regarding access.
Legally, you can even hunt on unposted land without landowner permission, just stay 100m away from any dwellings. Still the polite thing to do is ask, assuming you can identify the owner (lots of big lots around here are owned by trusts).
Quote:
Originally Posted by F&G
Common law in New Hampshire extends the privilege of public access to private lands that are not posted. You won’t find that in state law books, because it is common law, going back to the
philosophy of New England’s early colonists and supported over the centuries by case law. Our
forefathers knew the importance of balancing the need for landowners’ rights with that of the public
good. On one hand, the landowner can make decisions about his or her land. On the other hand,
the public should have limited rights to use and enjoy that land. The colonists held similar democratic notions about rivers, lakes, fish and wildlife.
Today, it’s easy to take this notion for granted. In New Hampshire and elsewhere in New England, we enjoy a long, proud tradition of public use of private land.
Maybe your town is just full of horrible people? I snowshoe across private property in S.NH all winter long, and while I avoid going near homes out of respect, I've never had an issue with landowners, F&G, or law enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
The next step is that some will put their land in a conservation easement and others will not. Those that will not will pay their fair share of property taxes thereby reducing the tax burden upon others who are currently paying their share for their benefit.
Every time you write "pay their fair share", I read that as "I want to stick it to my neighbors who own more land than me by taxing them based on the highest and best use of their property rather than what they are actually using it for"
For example, the town put in a new gravel road a while back and now I have a few acres with road frontage on the other side of my property which could be developed into a housing lot and sold for six figures. If I were to take those acres out of current use and subdivide it, I'd pay five figures in one-time LUCT when I took it out, and I am fine with that.
What I'm not OK with is somebody saying that because the town put down some gravel and now I could sell that chunk off as a housing lot, I should be taxed on that part of my property as if I already had done so.
No it's not. That is what they want you to believe. You generally have to go way up north to get access to large tracts of current use land. Most private landowners will not allow access to their current use property.
Location of said land isn't the point. Who cares where it is. Tons of private land owners participate in Operation Landshare and/or allow snowmobile trails on their land. Besides, north is better-not everyone wants to live in the Boston burbs or has employment needs in the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
Putting it in a conservation easement achieves the very objective of current use - restriction from development. Owners can still use it - they just can't develop it. If they want retain the right to develop it - they should pay the same rate as others do that pay full taxes.
I can't imagine the thought process which would make me think undeveloped land should be taxed at the same rate as developed land.
Conservation easements remove the property owner's rights to the land, so that shouldn't even enter into the conversation. Want to give away land-go for it. It isn't a horrible idea for people who have no heirs and are planning to die in place. Want to protect it-own and control it, but paying the same rate for land that costs the town nothing? Not a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease
There is are many, many property owners who own large tracts of land outside of current use who have no plans to develop it.
Do you see a problem with this? I sure don't. It's their land.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking of fair, I think the LUCT is a reasonable compromise for fairness.
Claiming owners are taking the RA but posting their land anyway? Citation Needed.
Common law in New Hampshire extends the privilege of public access to private lands (Unless posted, etc)
