NH Panorama Taxes make news

kunamola · 11-14-2005, 08:11 AM

Front page article in the Washington Post today about the Panorama taxes and how subjective is the formula used to figure out the value of a view? Why NH needs to tax farmers and residents on a view is also spoken to, if only briefly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

fatlazyless · 11-14-2005, 01:34 PM

There was an interesting property tax item from Orford Nh a cople weeks ago where the local selectmen voted not to accept the contracted assessing company's new value for Orfors and in particular the prop vales for homes w/ a scenic wide view to the west across the Connecticut River, and valley, and into Vermont. The Orford selectmen voted to say 'no, we do not accept, and we want to keep using the latest prior assessment from 1998. In the past the local town could selectively regulate their property values by not doing an assessment fot 5-10-15 years, plus it has been suggested that there were two sets of values for assessing; one for local residents and one for people from away. Now, the local assessors come under the scrutiny of the state gov in Concord.

Lady Di · 11-16-2005, 11:43 PM

It's like assessing the air you breathe.

What will happen to the state motto...
"Live Free or Die"?

I don't see New Hampshire-ites sitting still for this.

If I was still there, I would stand and fight.

Since I am not there, I hope someone will tell me what I can do to help prevent this from happening.

I don't love the winters, but I love the lifestyle, and my family's freedom is there.

Too much interference in everything.

TomC · 11-17-2005, 07:44 AM

i don't get it. i think that the system already accounts for the value gained by a beautiful, panoramic, view. Tax is based on value. Two otherwise identical properties, one with the view of the land, valley, mountains, etc. would command a higher sell price than one with a view of a sewage treatment plant.. So a value-based tax system captures this situation... right?

Same as two identical properties- one waterfront, one not - would have dramatically different values. there is no separate line item or tax for waterfront.. This is taken into account by virtue of the valuation resulting from the fact it is situated on the water.

what am I missing?

DRH · 11-17-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomC

i don't get it. i think that the system already accounts for the value gained by a beautiful, panoramic, view. Tax is based on value. Two otherwise identical properties, one with the view of the land, valley, mountains, etc. would command a higher sell price than one with a view of a sewage treatment plant.. So a value-based tax system captures this situation... right?

Same as two identical properties- one waterfront, one not - would have dramatically different values. there is no separate line item or tax for waterfront.. This is taken into account by virtue of the valuation resulting from the fact it is situated on the water.

what am I missing?

That's exactly the way I see it too, TomC, and your example is right on the mark. A beautiful view is going to increase the actual market value of a property in the first place. What justification is there for a town or city to arbitrarily add that additional value back in a second time for tax assessment purposes?

If you're missing something, so am I.

Woodsy · 11-17-2005, 08:29 AM

Tom...

You are not missing anything. The state has finally got around to assessing those properties with a view, taking into account how much the view adds to the value. Its not an extra or additional tax, the value of the view is just factored into the overall value of the property. Same as waterfront. Alot of people are just confused on the issue, thinking its a separate tax when its not.

Woodsy

RumGuy · 11-17-2005, 08:38 AM

Unfortunately they are taxing the older Summer Lake residents right back home. The taxes on my parent's property are now annually more than they paid for it.

jrc · 11-17-2005, 09:52 AM

Woodsy is right, the view tax and water front tax are not separate taxes but rolled into the property tax because properties with a view or waterfront cost more.
I recently sold a condo in Samoset and to set the sell price we looked at recent sales. Samoset has over a hundred condos, some are near the water, and some have water views. So a unit far away from the water, with a no view, might be sell for and be taxed at $275K, the same size unit with a view of the water will be valued and taxed at $325K. A water front unit will cost more like $450K. So you could say there is a waterfront tax and a view tax.

But a three bedroom unit will be 25% more value and tax than a two bedroom, so do we have a bedroom tax? An end unit costs more than a middle unit, so now we have an end unit tax. A clean unit commands a better price than a worn out place, so now we have a cleanliness tax.

Woodsy · 11-17-2005, 10:30 AM

Its really not the governments fault. Tax rates have remained fairly stable and in some cases they have actually gone down. The reason the rates have dropped is because of the exponential increase in property values. The home I bought 4 years ago, (not on the water, just water access) has doubled in value. Unfortunately, my property assessment and taxes reflect this. I am sure with the demand for waterfront properties at an all time high, they are the most affected by the runaway real estate market.

I know that nobody wants to pay a large sum in taxes, but unfortunately, Lake Winnipesaukee is a victim of her own success.

Woodsy

DRH · 11-17-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Tom...

You are not missing anything. The state has finally got around to assessing those properties with a view, taking into account how much the view adds to the value. Its not an extra or additional tax, the value of the view is just factored into the overall value of the property. Same as waterfront. Alot of people are just confused on the issue, thinking its a separate tax when its not.

Woodsy

You're right, Woodsy, it's not a separate tax. But from what I've read, it is a separate component of the tax assessment process. As I understand it, the state requires that all real estate be assessed at its actual market value for property tax purposes ... in other words, the value at which the property would likely sell in an arms-length transaction. As TomC states, a property's "view" is already built into the price at which that property would be sold on the open market.

Recent articles I've read (see the one below) seem to indicate that some town assessors may be adjusting the assessed value of certain properties above their actual "market value", solely because they have a nice view. If that is what is occurring, then the "assessed value" of those properties would exceed their "market value". That's what folks seem to be complaining about.

November 1, 2005 "Fosters Online" Article

Woodsy · 11-17-2005, 11:35 AM

I think the issue of a view is that a view is just not able to measured in a quantative manner or some might say a fair manner. I highly doubt that they overinflated or over-assesed property values. I just think they have little to comp the properties with. The problem lies with how do you actually put a dollar value to a view. The people with views, who have been relatively left alone by the tax assessor, are finding themselves with huge jumps in property value as property with a view is becoming more and more popular.

I think that a natural progression is occuring with property. First the waterfront homes skyrocketed in value as they became popular. Once the waterfront was all bought up/scarce/ultra expensive, people wanted water access, so that property skyrocketed in value as well. Now, all thats left is property with views. They are joining the waterfront and the water access properties in popularity, exponentially increasing thier value and thus thier taxes.

Woodsy

ApS · 11-17-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Di

It's like assessing the air you breathe.

Not exactly. In order to get a view, you (or a spec-builder) have to cut down a lot of trees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Once the waterfront was all bought up/scarce/ultra expensive, people wanted water access, so that property skyrocketed in value as well. Now, all thats left is property with views. They are joining the waterfront and the water access properties in popularity, exponentially increasing thier value and thus thier taxes...."

At least the State requires that waterfront homes keep a percentage of their trees.

Because they cut down hundreds of their own trees to enable their view, hillside trophy homes detract from everybody else's view of the Lakes Region's wooded hills and mountains.

I wonder: If those with a truly weighty "Panorama Tax" were to transplant replacement trees (to replace those that were cut for the view), are "Panorama Taxes" reduced for the loss of view?

.

Lin · 11-18-2005, 07:36 PM

Acres per second, a perfect example of this is the recent home and the more recent cut on Red Hill in Moultonborough. For years if you had a view looking up to Red Hill all forested you were lucky. Now you are looking at huge scars in the landscape. So what is the theory here? If the original homeowner with the view enjoyed the hill all forested, then gets taxed for the view, then one of the hill owners decides they want the view looking back at the lake how does that work on the original home owner's panoramic view tax? I know I don't like looking at the newer scar on the hillside. I doubt any homeowner that had the original view of Red Hill will get lower taxes now that the view has been disturbed. I don't see how this tax can be efficiently spread out without causing chaos. And will they be taxing in the cities? How about the top floor condo owner with a neat view of the ocean, rivers, city lights etc? I can't believe the live free or die state is accepting this. Even if they say they have always used it but never stated it up front on the bills. I just think it's an absurd tax and that the taxes should be based on the sales of homes in the neighborhood or sales of homes with similar views in similar towns or locations. This tax will surely add to the deathknell of open space and farmlands! It's hard enough for my parents to pay taxes for near waterfront property, imagine being in a small town without much infrastructure and being taxed high because you have a "view". Too arbitrary to me.

gtxrider · 11-19-2005, 08:03 AM

Isn't this a very subjective way to assess value? What may be a beautiful to one may be an eye sore to another. Case in point the Baher Estate. If this was in my line of site I would think the quality of the panorama had dropped so would my taxes drop? They build bigger and bigger houses blast more rock, cut down more trees and scar the landscape so your panorama taxes should be going down?

As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the BEER HOLDER"

11-14-2005, 08:11 AM	#1
kunamola Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Northern Virginia and Melvin Village, NH Posts: 44 Thanks: 3 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	NH Panorama Taxes make news Front page article in the Washington Post today about the Panorama taxes and how subjective is the formula used to figure out the value of a view? Why NH needs to tax farmers and residents on a view is also spoken to, if only briefly. http://www.washingtonpost.com

11-14-2005, 01:34 PM	#2
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,527 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 296 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	state wide property tax value equalization- what the heck? There was an interesting property tax item from Orford Nh a cople weeks ago where the local selectmen voted not to accept the contracted assessing company's new value for Orfors and in particular the prop vales for homes w/ a scenic wide view to the west across the Connecticut River, and valley, and into Vermont. The Orford selectmen voted to say 'no, we do not accept, and we want to keep using the latest prior assessment from 1998. In the past the local town could selectively regulate their property values by not doing an assessment fot 5-10-15 years, plus it has been suggested that there were two sets of values for assessing; one for local residents and one for people from away. Now, the local assessors come under the scrutiny of the state gov in Concord.

11-16-2005, 11:43 PM	#3
Lady Di Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 185 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I don't see this happening. It's like assessing the air you breathe. What will happen to the state motto... "Live Free or Die"? I don't see New Hampshire-ites sitting still for this. If I was still there, I would stand and fight. Since I am not there, I hope someone will tell me what I can do to help prevent this from happening. I don't love the winters, but I love the lifestyle, and my family's freedom is there. Too much interference in everything. __________________ Lady Di

11-17-2005, 07:44 AM	#4
TomC Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 547 Thanks: 9 Thanked 29 Times in 20 Posts	why isn't the panorama tax "built-in"? i don't get it. i think that the system already accounts for the value gained by a beautiful, panoramic, view. Tax is based on value. Two otherwise identical properties, one with the view of the land, valley, mountains, etc. would command a higher sell price than one with a view of a sewage treatment plant.. So a value-based tax system captures this situation... right? Same as two identical properties- one waterfront, one not - would have dramatically different values. there is no separate line item or tax for waterfront.. This is taken into account by virtue of the valuation resulting from the fact it is situated on the water. what am I missing?

11-17-2005, 08:38 AM	#7
RumGuy Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Cape Cod / W.Alton Posts: 76 Thanks: 4 Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts	Taxes Unfortunately they are taxing the older Summer Lake residents right back home. The taxes on my parent's property are now annually more than they paid for it.

11-17-2005, 08:29 AM	#6
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Tom... You are not missing anything. The state has finally got around to assessing those properties with a view, taking into account how much the view adds to the value. Its not an extra or additional tax, the value of the view is just factored into the overall value of the property. Same as waterfront. Alot of people are just confused on the issue, thinking its a separate tax when its not. Woodsy

11-17-2005, 09:52 AM	#8
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	Property values Woodsy is right, the view tax and water front tax are not separate taxes but rolled into the property tax because properties with a view or waterfront cost more. I recently sold a condo in Samoset and to set the sell price we looked at recent sales. Samoset has over a hundred condos, some are near the water, and some have water views. So a unit far away from the water, with a no view, might be sell for and be taxed at $275K, the same size unit with a view of the water will be valued and taxed at $325K. A water front unit will cost more like $450K. So you could say there is a waterfront tax and a view tax. But a three bedroom unit will be 25% more value and tax than a two bedroom, so do we have a bedroom tax? An end unit costs more than a middle unit, so now we have an end unit tax. A clean unit commands a better price than a worn out place, so now we have a cleanliness tax.

11-17-2005, 10:30 AM	#9
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	Its really not the governments fault. Tax rates have remained fairly stable and in some cases they have actually gone down. The reason the rates have dropped is because of the exponential increase in property values. The home I bought 4 years ago, (not on the water, just water access) has doubled in value. Unfortunately, my property assessment and taxes reflect this. I am sure with the demand for waterfront properties at an all time high, they are the most affected by the runaway real estate market. I know that nobody wants to pay a large sum in taxes, but unfortunately, Lake Winnipesaukee is a victim of her own success. Woodsy

11-17-2005, 11:35 AM	#11
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,949 Thanks: 80 Thanked 969 Times in 432 Posts	I think the issue of a view is that a view is just not able to measured in a quantative manner or some might say a fair manner. I highly doubt that they overinflated or over-assesed property values. I just think they have little to comp the properties with. The problem lies with how do you actually put a dollar value to a view. The people with views, who have been relatively left alone by the tax assessor, are finding themselves with huge jumps in property value as property with a view is becoming more and more popular. I think that a natural progression is occuring with property. First the waterfront homes skyrocketed in value as they became popular. Once the waterfront was all bought up/scarce/ultra expensive, people wanted water access, so that property skyrocketed in value as well. Now, all thats left is property with views. They are joining the waterfront and the water access properties in popularity, exponentially increasing thier value and thus thier taxes. Woodsy

11-18-2005, 07:36 PM	#13
Lin Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts & Moultonborough Posts: 673 Thanks: 41 Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts	Acres per second, a perfect example of this is the recent home and the more recent cut on Red Hill in Moultonborough. For years if you had a view looking up to Red Hill all forested you were lucky. Now you are looking at huge scars in the landscape. So what is the theory here? If the original homeowner with the view enjoyed the hill all forested, then gets taxed for the view, then one of the hill owners decides they want the view looking back at the lake how does that work on the original home owner's panoramic view tax? I know I don't like looking at the newer scar on the hillside. I doubt any homeowner that had the original view of Red Hill will get lower taxes now that the view has been disturbed. I don't see how this tax can be efficiently spread out without causing chaos. And will they be taxing in the cities? How about the top floor condo owner with a neat view of the ocean, rivers, city lights etc? I can't believe the live free or die state is accepting this. Even if they say they have always used it but never stated it up front on the bills. I just think it's an absurd tax and that the taxes should be based on the sales of homes in the neighborhood or sales of homes with similar views in similar towns or locations. This tax will surely add to the deathknell of open space and farmlands! It's hard enough for my parents to pay taxes for near waterfront property, imagine being in a small town without much infrastructure and being taxed high because you have a "view". Too arbitrary to me. __________________ Lin

11-19-2005, 08:03 AM	#14
gtxrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Piscataway, NJ Posts: 1,030 Thanks: 2 Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts	In who's eyes? Isn't this a very subjective way to assess value? What may be a beautiful to one may be an eye sore to another. Case in point the Baher Estate. If this was in my line of site I would think the quality of the panorama had dropped so would my taxes drop? They build bigger and bigger houses blast more rock, cut down more trees and scar the landscape so your panorama taxes should be going down? As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the BEER HOLDER"