[fatlazyless]

Today's March 22 Laconia Daily Sun has an article that starts on the front page titled "Court rules view of Winnipesaukee is legitimate part of condo's value"

It's about a lawsuit between a Gilford condo owner vs. the Town of Gilford decided by Justice Larry Smuckler of Belknap Superior Court. It's appropriate to this thread and is a medium lengthy article.

I'm hoping someone with a scanner could post it here, or hey, maybe someone at the Laconia prison who has lots of time and needs something to do. (Hey Danny-boy, r u still in?) For me to type it out could take me, gosh, maybe an hour so that's a no-go.

The decision was for the town and against the condo owner plus the Judge agreed with the towns attorney and awarded.....well, here's the last paragraph.

"Spector (town attorney Laura Spector) characterized the suit as "oppressive, vexatious, arbitrary, capricious, frivolous and bad faith" and asked the court to dismiss it and award legal costs to the town. Smukler (Belknap County Superior Court Justice Larry Smukler) readily agreed and awarded court costs and attorney's fees to the town."
................................................
From the article's middle.

Rabinovitz further claimed that her assessment was disproportionate; in other words, that her property was assessed at a higher percentage of its fair market than that at which other properties were generally assessed. Her argument hinged on (town assessor) Corcoran's two methods to value properties. He values the view of single -family homes by measuring the property's linear feet of waterfront, but measures the degrees of view when appraising condominiums. Corcoran told the court that if the linear feet of waterfront were applied to condominiums, the appraisals would fall short of fair market value.

Rabinovitz maintained that Corcoran's use of two methodologies was contrary to an opinion of the New Hampshire Supreme Court stipulatng that "equality in the burden of taxation cannot exit without uniformity in the mode of assessments as well as in the rate of taxation." However, Smukler held that "a fair reading of the quoted language requires assessors to assess all properties at the same percentage of fair market value - it does not require a uniform methodology" and referred to another Supreme Court opinion where the justices ruled that a flawed methodology does not itself prove a disproportionate result.

Likewise, Smukler lent no credence to Rabinovitz's assertion that views cannot be considered in appraising the overall value of a
property. "The town is not taxing Ms. Rabinovitz's view," he wrote,"rather it is taxing Ms. Rabinovitz's property." Again citing case law, he explained that fair market value represented the price a seller and buyer would negotiate "taking into account all considerations that fairly might be brought forward and reasonably given substantial weight in such bargaining." View, Smukler said, is one factor sellers and buyers consider and assessors may weigh in appraising property and found that 'The town is not imposing a separate 'view tax'."

Thanks LaDaSun and reporter Michael Kitch ..................................

It would be interesting to hear what type of an argument the 'ax the view tax' crowd would make to counter this court's opinion. No doubt, they would come up with something and probably even believe it, themselves. But, what obviously is really driving the 'ax the view tax crowd' and myself is the increasing high price of their property tax. So, how come Tom Thompson and the 'ax the view tax' crowd does not suggest an alternative revenue system like a state income tax? No, that would be too even, fair, representative of ability-to-pay and uncomplicated and besides, gosh oh-no, it would be the end of the oh-so-wonderfull, NH Advantage.

May the NH Advantage rest in peace somewhere in a museum of bygone NH republicanisms!

And, here's hoping the current lawsuit before the State Supreme Court asking for the State of NH to refund the last three years of state education tax succeeds!