Most of Current Use is unmanaged forest.
The Recreational Discount does not add significantly to the savings after going to Current Use I.
And again, there is no view tax. It is simply based on the market value of home with a view being higher than one that is not. Basically people will pay more for the property with a view, the same way that people will pay more for waterfront. Which is what you quoted. It impacts the market value.
And the change... it is already being discuss.
https://www.nhbr.com/current-use-sys...-to-taxpayers/
''The current use program assesses forest, farm and idle or unproductive land at its current use rather than ad valorem, or fair market, value. Undeveloped parcels of at least 10 acres qualify for current use assessment. Forest covers 2,623,405 acres, or 87%, of the land in current use. The 204,353 acres of farmland account for 7% of the total and 180,698 acres of unproductive land and wetlands make up the balance.
In addition, cultivated plots of any size generating documented annual income of $2,500 from the production and sale of agricultural or horticultural produce also qualify.''
As for the recreation use discount...
It is 20% off from the Current Use I discount.
So if I have an $80,000 ten acre lot in top prime farmland, it could be assessed as high as $4250 according to the current rates. The CU II would only lower that by $850 to $3400.
Figuring a $20 mil rate, initial taxation would be $1600, CU I would be $85, and CU II would be $60.80
As you can see, CU I is the real workhorse... while going to CU II only saves $24.20
The scope of the program to lower development pressure, retain farmland, and forest for the paper industry has either failed or been a bit dismal in its overall results. Active farmland within the program has fallen and the paper industry isn't coming back.
I expect the changes will be within the context of the management and pricing structure of the program rather than a complete scrapping of the program. I would guess that actively manage farmland being a small part of the program will see the fewest increases and forest land without managed stewardship would see the highest - if they even decide that option should be allowed.
There has even been some chatter reported on by the various media outlets of a possible lawsuit against NH claiming that since this is a State program, it falls under Part 1 Article 28-a