View Single Post
Old 03-01-2021, 07:02 PM   #10
Senior Member
MAXUM's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boise ID
Posts: 2,734
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,907 Times in 796 Posts

Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
The way I look at it, the rules by which property is assessed and taxed have been in place for quite a while. Businesses and non residents don't have a vote in the town budget and that is nothing new. Nor is it practical that they should. If non residents voted, they could shrink the budget to save themselves $$$ and face no significant impact. The residents would be stuck with the negative results. Non residents CHOOSE to be here. If they don't like the impact of town spending, they can leave. Further, the biggest impact on shifting taxes to the waterfront owners is not, I believe, the town budget, but instead other non residents bidding up property in a hot real estate market. Your assessed value is impacted by the increased prices they are willing to pay. YOUR property has increased potential value in the current market and THAT is what we are taxed on, estimated current value of our property. You might perceive that your increased value being taxed is "unfair" but that is how it works and has worked.

If you don't like the property tax system in NH, try Vermont or Maine. They have nice vacation property as well.

I'm not saying complaining people should leave but it feels like they sat down at a Poker game and are complaining that the rules are not like those of a game of Bridge.
No doubt it's a fascinating subject.

I do disagree it's not practical for "non full time residents" to have a say in budget related items ONLY. Otherwise it's akin to taxation with out representation right? So lets just say non-resident residents could vote as I suggested. You do bring up a good and valid point in theory all non residents could (if they outnumber full time residents) vote down every spending bill, however I don't believe that would conceptually happen. Here's why, property owners whether full time or not have a vested interest in the well being of the town where they own property. Certain towns are more desirable and some of that can be attributed to improvements in the aesthetics to basic services offered. To think that it is beneficial to starve a town where you hold a major investment seems at face value rather far fetched and self defeating. At the same time, there may be a little more resistance to frivolous spending or acceptance of projects that are simply way over priced and beyond what is prudent and reasonable for the town as a whole. See this is where I think to myself why the hell would full time residents ever vote anything down when they get such a huge return on a very small investment?

Not sure what the correct answer is I guess it comes down to the number of non residents to residents. I feel so long as the residents have the scales tipped slightly in their favor then there is no harm in letting non residents vote. That would assume that if all town residents voted in a block for a provision and all non residents in a block against, the provision would pass. However I don't see that ever happening, believing that most people are reasonable and requests to support the town, particularly critical departments would get overwhelming support from all.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote