Why are people "entitled" to a house on the lake or a house with lake access?
I bought a Moultonborough lake house in 1994 and I knew the tax structure then (it had already worked the way it does for quite a while). I knew that waterfront property would escalate in value and shift ever more tax proportionately to me. I planned to retire to the lake but my personal situation changed and I couldn't afford the lake house in retirement. I sold it, got a nice chunk of change for my retirement, and now live in a nice house (not on the lake) in Center Harbor. It quite nicely fits my retirement budget and, as observed, my taxes are much more stable and affordable. Friends of ours did the same thing and have been very happy in their non lake house with affordable taxes in Meredith for many years.
Why should lake owners be entitled to shift the taxes to other people so that they can keep their preferable house? Should the rest of the taxpayers be required to set aside some cash to allow lakefront owners to buy a Mercedes because that's more preferable than a Toyota?
The present property tax structure is reality and is unlikely to change. The state would have to decide that "helping" a small number of advantaged property owners and shifting the tax burden to non advantaged property owners would be workable. Since there are a LOT more NON advantaged property owners AND voters than advantaged owners, it would NOT be politically smart to consider this.
Confront the reality of the tax situation and do what you have to to fit your personal situation.
|