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.