View Single Post
Old 09-26-2018, 12:04 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 1,853
Thanks: 533
Thanked 355 Times in 245 Posts

Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
I'm not terribly familiar with the current use option other than knowing that it is an option and if I understand correctly it is not a no strings attached tax reduction.

First if I understand this correctly - the actual "real" value of the property is still part of the overall assessment just that what is actually paid out is a fraction of the actual current tax rate. At least that is what is indicated in the link I sent out previously.

Second you're not allowed to build on any property that is in a current use state, it is intended to give tax incentive to open and or green space with the caveat that it also has to remain open to public use. I think there may be some wiggle room far as posting the property for certain use such as no hunting but I'm fairly certain you cannot post it with no trespassing signs.

Third - there is a process to plow any property into current use, I am not aware of what that process is and whether or not the town or state has the ability to disapprove. I assume if you have to apply for it there is somebody making a yes or no decision?

The state does mandate all towns re-assess every year so that the valuations are somewhat real time. Before this was established some towns were apparently assessing more often then others and I believe this was pointed out when the whole Clairmont school funding case hit the courts. Some towns cried foul... and part of that was likely because of the redistribution of tax dollars from so called rich towns to so called poor towns.

I find it rather disgusting that some complain about so called "rich" people which is a very relative term trying to establish a fair assessment on their property. Just remember that whatever your worth, there is somebody out there who has less who would consider you to be "rich". The tax system needs to function independent, fair to all no matter what a person's net worth happens to be.
In this case I think the word "rich" could be used in describing this property. There is a limited number of people "rich" enough to purchase and assume the costs of owning an estate like this.
I'm not complaining about "rich" people. I'm just commenting on a piece of property that was developed far beyond it's value and that's no ones fault except the owners. Now it's somehow the fault of the town that it won't sell because the taxes are too high.
Would it sell if the property tax bill was lower? Probably, but it's not the towns responsibility to see that this owner gets the money back that he foolishly spent.
That being said, I see no problem with him going through the proper channels to try and get his tax bill reduced but that doesn't change the fact that he massively over developed that property.

Last edited by Biggd; 09-26-2018 at 12:36 PM.
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote