Acres per second, a perfect example of this is the recent home and the more recent cut on Red Hill in Moultonborough. For years if you had a view looking up to Red Hill all forested you were lucky. Now you are looking at huge scars in the landscape. So what is the theory here? If the original homeowner with the view enjoyed the hill all forested, then gets taxed for the view, then one of the hill owners decides they want the view looking back at the lake how does that work on the original home owner's panoramic view tax? I know I don't like looking at the newer scar on the hillside. I doubt any homeowner that had the original view of Red Hill will get lower taxes now that the view has been disturbed. I don't see how this tax can be efficiently spread out without causing chaos. And will they be taxing in the cities? How about the top floor condo owner with a neat view of the ocean, rivers, city lights etc? I can't believe the live free or die state is accepting this. Even if they say they have always used it but never stated it up front on the bills. I just think it's an absurd tax and that the taxes should be based on the sales of homes in the neighborhood or sales of homes with similar views in similar towns or locations. This tax will surely add to the deathknell of open space and farmlands! It's hard enough for my parents to pay taxes for near waterfront property, imagine being in a small town without much infrastructure and being taxed high because you have a "view". Too arbitrary to me.
__________________
Lin
|