Must be Town Spending - No?
So it looks to me that waterfront LAND in most cases doubled in value - the actual buildings/homes sort of stayed the same. Of course the actual tax rate went down BUT that in no way compensates for the double aspect - not even close.
In the example above from Gary > I'm rough estimating that he is paying some $5k to $6k more in taxes due to this per year now? As well as any other waterfront owners.
So given the above situation - the question is >> where is all that additional tax revenue going? To pay for spending that has increase for the town (if so for what exactly) OR did non-waterfront homeowners see a reduction in their taxes and more burden is being put on the waterfront owners? What exactly is the justification for such a large/disproportionate increase?
The money must be going somewhere as from a waterfront owner perspective - the increase cloud be close to 33%.
I used to live in a town many years ago where they could not raise the taxes on anyone more than 4% per year. This here seems like the Wild West.
|