Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant
Different perspective: ~45 years ago my sister and BIL bought 600 acres. ASAP, they sold 400 and had minimal $$ exposure on the remaining 200 acres. Tree farmers. They moved onto the land from away 25 years ago. In future, my niece will inherit and plans to move here. To them, this was a great "investment". Maybe we all need to re-think "investment" and think about our grandchildren instead of ourselves.
|
If this property is in NH, one thing to be careful of is the long term holding of the property in question. Since NH lacks any broad based tax and relies solely on property taxes, this eventually will become a big problem for realestate investors. Especially those that are holding property in a reduced or tax deferred status, such as a tree farm or current use. It is no surprise that the pressure to develop and need to feed the insatiable appetite for local and state spending will put pressure on these programs to either reduce their advantage or simply get rid of them. It seems that there is a always something about these being discussed which if you read the tea leaves probably means it is not a matter of if but when that advantage is gone.
So from my point of view NH is for the most part a toxic place to invest in realestate due to the unpredictable carrying costs of property taxes. Not that it doesn't exist elsewhere but it is far more acute here that any oscillation in spending directly hits property owners and without regard to the impact of the person's ability to pay. Therefore many properties such as the one described even if owned outright may be lost for no other reason than the tax burden becomes to great. Of course nobody really cares that multigenerational properties are lost in this manner, only that there is somebody ready and willing to buy and take over the increased tax burden willingly. It is a sad but vicious cycle, but as they say, that is what they call "progress".