....property taxes too high?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Patofnaud

That and taxing farmers for what the property 'could be worth if we put 30 condo's on it, is another sin.

That is inaccurate.

Read this and it explains what the current use property tax program is all about. Note that for anyone who is farming their property they can take advantage of the current use laws even if they have less than the currently required 10 acre minimum so long as they meet certain criteria.

https://extension.unh.edu/resources/...401_Rep423.pdf

Using this method to reduce annual property taxes is a choice.

[Patofnaud]

Correct Maxum, but IIRC Moultonboro residents (among others) are/were pushing hard to override that.

I should have stated that.

[MAXUM]

Right because developers are getting mad there are large swaths of undeveloped property in prime locations they want to get their hands on and the only way to do that is to change the current use law to make it more financially difficult to hang on to raw property.

[Rusty]

Should I start a gofundme for poor Bob?
I would start it off with a penny.

[jeffk]

I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

As to Bob Bahre's property, it should be properly appraised for its current value. I don't feel sorry or anything for Bob's "problem" but he deserves equal treatment under the property laws. I appealed my tax bill and got an abatement years ago. Everyone has that right. It feels like a little jealousy over someone's success is coming out. Too bad.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

As to Bob Bahre's property, it should be properly appraised for its current value. I don't feel sorry or anything for Bob's "problem" but he deserves equal treatment under the property laws. I appealed my tax bill and got an abatement years ago. Everyone has that right. It feels like a little jealousy over someone's success is coming out. Too bad.

Not jealous but when you go big you're problems become bigger also. So he created his own problems by building something too big for the community and now it's the towns fault that he can't sell it?. I certainly don't feel bad for him but he's entitled to do what he has to do if he feels he's been singled out unfairly.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I would wonder if one town could modify current use. It seems like there has to equity across NH towns to maintain fair taxation. That seems to make it a state issue?

Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

[loonguy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

I agree. In addition, people are free to pick which town they live in, and low property taxes are a big reason why I chose to live in Moultonborough.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Whoa hold on a sec, the towns are the ones that come up with the budgets, those are voted on and approved by the residents. How is that not fair?

My apologies for not being accurate. It is not the taxation that needs to be fair or equal, it is the appraisal process and valuation of individual properties. A town cannot say, "Hey, here's a rich guy's house. Let's triple the valuation so we can tax him more.". The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

My point was that I believe putting a property into current use is a state policy and a town cannot deny a property owner that option. I think the adjustment to valuation is also set at the state level. The RSA says the appraisals shall be set at "at valuations based upon the current use values established by the {state} board".

The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

Oh if only it was that simple. Here's an example. Wolfeboro and New Durham are both part of the Gov. Wentworth Regional School district. In the case of New Durham, the school portion of the tax bill is more than 70% of the total bill.

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

What drives the difference is that Wolfeboro has fewer kids in the system and a many, many more highly assessed properties that don't send kids to the schools. Given the number of votes on the school board, New Durham is often outvoted when it comes to voting down school increases. So we often have little control over the yearly increase in taxes, even when town spending remains constant.

Yes, there is always the option of opting out of the district, but the contract penalties would offset any advantage.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Oh if only it was that simple. Here's an example. Wolfeboro and New Durham are both part of the Gov. Wentworth Regional School district. In the case of New Durham, the school portion of the tax bill is more than 70% of the total bill.

Wolfeboro's tax rate $12.64

New Durham's tax rate $22.96

What drives the difference is that Wolfeboro has fewer kids in the system and a many, many more highly assessed properties that don't send kids to the schools. Given the number of votes on the school board, New Durham is often outvoted when it comes to voting down school increases. So we often have little control over the yearly increase in taxes, even when town spending remains constant.



Yes, there is always the option of opting out of the district, but the contract penalties would offset any advantage.

Merrymeeting, did you know that Tuftonboro pays the most per student in the district at $22,000. per student? Wolfeboro is next at 19,000. New Durham pays 14,266, Brookfield 15,282, Ossipee 11,799. I don't know about Effingham. These were from 2015 the latest figure available. The average cost per student in the district is 15,900. I wonder how Alton does with the new school?

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by tis

Merrymeeting, did you know that Tuftonboro pays the most per student in the district at $22,000. per student? Wolfeboro is next at 19,000. New Durham pays 14,266, Brookfield 15,282, Ossipee 11,799. I don't know about Effingham. These were from 2015 the latest figure available. The average cost per student in the district is 15,900. I wonder how Alton does with the new school?

Hi Tis, no I didn't know those figures and I've been trying to understand the GWSD funding model for some time. It doesn't make sense to me that the cost/student would vary by town. If you have a link or pointer to how all this works, I'd appreciate a PM. Continuing this here would sidetrack the original discussion.

[mcdude]

Here is the actual property listing....


https://www.beangroup.com/homes/142_...ex.html?cnt=16


The $309,230 tax bill is for two houses which includes the one that was built for the son. Between the two houses there are;
12 BEDS
14 FULL BATHS
10 HALF BATHS
2 3/4 Baths


Does anyone know what the other five properties that are owned in Alton are? I'm guessing that one is the Hannaford property?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Here is the actual property listing....


https://www.beangroup.com/homes/142_...ex.html?cnt=16


The $309,230 tax bill is for two houses which includes the one that was built for the son. Between the two houses there are;
12 BEDS
14 FULL BATHS
10 HALF BATHS
2 3/4 Baths


Does anyone know what the other five properties that are owned in Alton are? I'm guessing that one is the Hannaford property?

But it's the towns fault he can't sell it because the taxes are too high. I'm sure all his other bills are over the top also! How much do you think his landscaping bill is?
How many people need an estate that big?
The customer base for a property like that is pretty small.

[LIforrelaxin]

Please note somethings in this discussion.....

Long view as a whole was for sale for 49 Million... that included both houses....

reading the article it appears that the two house are now on the market independantly at 8.9M a piece....giving us 17.8M price tag for the hole thing....

Still an ineradicable price reduction... but not as big as it would seem if you didn't take the time to comprehend the article.

Bottom line is, there is a process to object to your property tax bill... as long as the Bahres are going through that process, who cares........

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Please note somethings in this discussion.....

Long view as a whole was for sale for 49 Million... that included both houses....

reading the article it appears that the two house are now on the market independantly at 8.9M a piece....giving us 17.8M price tag for the hole thing....

Still an ineradicable price reduction... but not as big as it would seem if you didn't take the time to comprehend the article.

Bottom line is, there is a process to object to your property tax bill... as long as the Bahres are going through that process, who cares........

It doesn't really matter what you put it on the market for. In the end it's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That is yet to be determined.

[AC2717]

chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by AC2717

chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

Isn't this one of the reasons why you see people making improvements or adding bedrooms, etc with out pulling proper permits so its basically a secret to the assessors so their taxes don't go up?

[fatlazyless]

www.campalton.com/annuals/199-1956-annual

Camp Alton was a very happening summer camp for boys, in operation from 1937 to 1992. In 1998 or so, Bob Bahre was able to purchase this property, demolish almost all of the campy cabins and campy buildings, and subdivide it into six single house lots, as it is today.

Where his mansion is situated used to be the "second field", a baseball diamond and outfield mostly used for playing softball by the younger campers or lower camp. The bigger ball field situated in the center area was for the upper camp.

As a Camp Alton camper in 1964, I can recall hunting for the snipe, a snipe hunt, armed with a broom, stalking those wild snipes all along the top of the lake embankment about 7:30-8:30pm till sunset!!! That Clay Point location has inspiring sunsets ….. especially while hunting for snipes …… some things never change.

Can also remember the Capture the Flag-Flag Rush event, Grey vs. Green, and receiving treatment from the camp nurse for road rash type abrasions on my chest from missing a diving tackle on the hard dirt surfaced sprinting track. Can also recall getting my butt whipped on the tennis court something like 6-0, 6-1 …… ouch!

Before the waterfront would allow you to go waterskiing, you had to swim for 1/2 mile behind a rowboat in deep water, from the beach to the canoe dock and back, without ever touching the rowboat handles on the transom. One touch, and you failed the test ….. you touch-a these handles …… you fail this test!

In the photo above, the canoe dock and outer dock where the Uncle Sam would stop to deliver the daily mail and packages is still here, along with the camp flag pole.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

Isn't this one of the reasons why you see people making improvements or adding bedrooms, etc with out pulling proper permits so its basically a secret to the assessors so their taxes don't go up?

could be, could be same argument as to why people dump large trash on the side of the road or in the woods, cost money to have it removed or bring to the dump

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

A certain amount of taxes and fees need to be collected to run the town. If they don't get it from income tax and sales tax then it has to come from other taxes which is property taxes. Everyone wants their property to be worth as much as possible but they don't want to pay taxes on that value.

If the town is using that money properly then everyone benefits by the value of their property rising. Some towns manage that better than others.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Biggd

A certain amount of taxes and fees need to be collected to run the town. If they don't get it from income tax and sales tax then it has to come from other taxes which is property taxes. Everyone wants their property to be worth as much as possible but they don't want to pay taxes on that value.

If the town is using that money properly then everyone benefits by the value of their property rising. Some towns manage that better than others.

i agree, also to the point that I would think that the per acreage and sqft for building would be set accordingly
the short argument i have is that materials of property is make the difference in tax

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by AC2717

chaps my butt,
regardless of wealth taxes should be on a level playing field, If they feel it is not taxed right, as said above go through the process, I cannot say either way whether they were gut punched with it or not, nor could anyone except the assesor and even then they have different feelings.

lets discuss feelings and bills, two should never be mixed but for some reason the #1 bill, taxes, is. Why can't taxes be flat based: this per acre of land this per square feet. Why if someone improves the property more than someone else, and spending their already taxed money to due so (yes I say taxed because NH people sill have to pay Federal income tax) why are they then taxed again on what they spent their money on.
The same guy who does nothing to the same sqfeet and acerage is paying less taxes than this guy for the same amount of land and square feet.

Leaning most and more and more people to say why improve and why make my land make the town look better, they are only going to take money away from me.

again taxes should be based on per acre or size of land and how much square feet the building in, then you can vary from there on land use rates

not whether I have granite and marble and that guy has laminates and vinyl

(soap box stepped off of)

Interesting concept however there are fundamental things that define a property value. As they say in real estate location location location right? If your method of valuation were used somebody that owns a piece of land, say one acre out in the middle of nowhere with say seasonal access via a class 6 road would be worth the same as a prime piece of water front on Governor's island. That in reality is simply comparing apples and oranges is it not? In the same way you cannot compare the SQFT value of a mobile home to the SQFT value of a modern day constructed house. They simply do not compare and in both examples there is a significant price difference as one is more desirable than the other.

There is no way to eliminate the opinion factor as to evaluating property values however that opinion needs to be based on some sort of acceptable and equitable metric. Hence the reason why there is an abatement process where if you do not agree with an assessment then you can challenge it's accuracy.

This is likely why most towns will hire an outside independent firm to establish assessments so there is no appearance of impropriety.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Interesting concept however there are fundamental things that define a property value. As they say in real estate location location location right? If your method of valuation were used somebody that owns a piece of land, say one acre out in the middle of nowhere with say seasonal access via a class 6 road would be worth the same as a prime piece of water front on Governor's island. That in reality is simply comparing apples and oranges is it not? In the same way you cannot compare the SQFT value of a mobile home to the SQFT value of a modern day constructed house. They simply do not compare and in both examples there is a significant price difference as one is more desirable than the other.

There is no way to eliminate the opinion factor as to evaluating property values however that opinion needs to be based on some sort of acceptable and equitable metric. Hence the reason why there is an abatement process where if you do not agree with an assessment then you can challenge it's accuracy.

This is likely why most towns will hire an outside independent firm to establish assessments so there is no appearance of impropriety.

there's the crux, value (market), taxes are based on value, what I am saying taxes should be based on amount of land and sqft of the building, nothing to due with market value

1 acre in east overshoe in the center of town, vs one acre anywhere else in east overshoe should be taxed and the same amount, at the end of the day they are both still an acre in east overshoe

this also eliminates the need to abate, need to hire assesors, maybe even the need to have an assesors department and so on

[Shrimpbrain]

Damn, so easy to see who DOESN'T live up here full time. Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Complain Complain Complain Complain. Blah Blah Blah. Here's a tip...Don't like it MOVE. You will be much less stressed out where you live presently.

[Reilly]

Originally Posted by Shrimpbrain

Damn, so easy to see who DOESN'T live up here full time. Bitch Bitch Bitch Bitch Complain Complain Complain Complain. Blah Blah Blah. Here's a tip...Don't like it MOVE. You will be much less stressed out where you live presently.

If you don't like the heat get out of the FIRE, just stop complaning

[MAXUM]

WOW!

Anyone who owns property in the state has a vested interest in how taxes are assessed on their property and how their tax money is spent. Where one permanently resides is rather irrelevant to the subject matter in hand unless you are purposely just trying to stir the pot. Frankly I think it's good that there is interest in the subject only because so many will just bury their heads in the sand and just say it is what it is. Respectfully if you don't like the conversation then don't read it. For the rest of us that are having this discussion whether I agree with them or not still find it interesting.

That's from a NH native and resident BTW.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

WOW!

Anyone who owns property in the state has a vested interest in how taxes are assessed on their property and how their tax money is spent. Where one permanently resides is rather irrelevant to the subject matter in hand unless you are purposely just trying to stir the pot. Frankly I think it's good that there is interest in the subject only because so many will just bury their heads in the sand and just say it is what it is. Respectfully if you don't like the conversation then don't read it. For the rest of us that are having this discussion whether I agree with them or not still find it interesting.

That's from a NH native and resident BTW.

I bet Mr. Bahre would disagree. His over 1/3 MILLION Dollar contribution does not give him a vote on how the money is wasted by the Town of Alton.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by AC2717

there's the crux, value (market), taxes are based on value, what I am saying taxes should be based on amount of land and sqft of the building, nothing to due with market value

1 acre in east overshoe in the center of town, vs one acre anywhere else in east overshoe should be taxed and the same amount, at the end of the day they are both still an acre in east overshoe

this also eliminates the need to abate, need to hire assesors, maybe even the need to have an assesors department and so on

It doesn't work. Either the less desirable piece of land pays too much, the more desirable not enough, or the town doesn't generate enough money to provide services.

Think of it this way - would we want to work somewhere where everyone started at the same pay and received the same the percent increase in pay each year? My guess is no - we want the ability to be judged on our merit and receive our pay accordingly. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to our property? If I chose to spend my money and improve the value of my property, what's wrong with my taxes being assessed on what it is worth - just like my salary being based on the quality of my work? The grey area is the valuation - I know in my case my property is worth WAY less than the assessor thinks it is - until I go to sell it when suddenly it's worth a lot more!

As to the original post, if someone wants to give me the property I am more than happy to figure out how to pay the tax bill on it!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Garcia

It doesn't work. Either the less desirable piece of land pays too much, the more desirable not enough, or the town doesn't generate enough money to provide services.

Think of it this way - would we want to work somewhere where everyone started at the same pay and received the same the percent increase in pay each year? My guess is no - we want the ability to be judged on our merit and receive our pay accordingly. Shouldn't the same standard be applied to our property? If I chose to spend my money and improve the value of my property, what's wrong with my taxes being assessed on what it is worth - just like my salary being based on the quality of my work? The grey area is the valuation - I know in my case my property is worth WAY less than the assessor thinks it is - until I go to sell it when suddenly it's worth a lot more!

As to the original post, if someone wants to give me the property I am more than happy to figure out how to pay the tax bill on it!

polite-fully disagree and do not think you can compare it to earning a wage for yourself. And also this is on a spending side of a debate vs a earning side which is for individual merit and reward, but an acre and sqft are finite things that you can put a set rate and non market value. Insurance companies do it on every single homeowners and business policy they write. for example, I insure a property on one side of Laconia and then insure one on the other side the base rate for the property and Liability are set, aside from the personal exposures of the individual, but the base rates are the same in every equation in the town of Laconia or anywhere else for that matter.

Have to get away from the argument of Market value, and as it is said time and time again market value is only what someone is willing to pay for it and this is where all the disagrements, asessing, abatements comes from and sitrs the proverbial pot of rich vs poor. Takes away well im not getting permits cause they will hit me with more taxes, and blah blah blah.
Let the market dictate selling price, but set the tax. But at the end of the an acre in a town is an acre in the town. There is no argument of the less desirable vs desirable. It is you want to buy or own property in this town the taxes per acre is this and the price for sqft is this, period. The town sets the rates, adjusts as needed (we know that story)

[Woodsy]

AC2717...

So it is your opinion that property should be taxed at a flat rate regardless of value?

Your argument that "That's how Insurance Co's do it" is silly. They are only insuring the building and its contents. They are not insuring the land those buildings are on. A property can be worth $600K because of its location, but the cost to rebuild the home on that property might only be $200K.

Property values are market driven... the more desirable the property.. the more people are willing to pay for it. Do you want to live on Beacon Hill? Or do you want to live Dorchester? If you have the $$$ to purchase the property, you have $$$ to pay the taxes on it. If people don't like the taxes, then sell it, make a tidy profit (this America and we are a "for Profit" country) and go buy elsewhere with a lower property tax burden. If enough people did that, the market prices of property on the Lake should fall. The reality is, a wealthier person will scarf up the property and the cycle continues.

And lets not forget... owning a 2nd home is a luxury. Any and all taxes paid on something like that amount to a Luxury Tax.

If you don't like the way the town/state is spending your tax money... show up to the meetings and let your voice be heard. You cannot vote, but your opinion will certainly be heard and noted.


Woodsy

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by AC2717

polite-fully disagree and do not think you can compare it to earning a wage for yourself. And also this is on a spending side of a debate vs a earning side which is for individual merit and reward, but an acre and sqft are finite things that you can put a set rate and non market value. Insurance companies do it on every single homeowners and business policy they write. for example, I insure a property on one side of Laconia and then insure one on the other side the base rate for the property and Liability are set, aside from the personal exposures of the individual, but the base rates are the same in every equation in the town of Laconia or anywhere else for that matter.

Have to get away from the argument of Market value, and as it is said time and time again market value is only what someone is willing to pay for it and this is where all the disagrements, asessing, abatements comes from and sitrs the proverbial pot of rich vs poor. Takes away well im not getting permits cause they will hit me with more taxes, and blah blah blah.
Let the market dictate selling price, but set the tax. But at the end of the an acre in a town is an acre in the town. There is no argument of the less desirable vs desirable. It is you want to buy or own property in this town the taxes per acre is this and the price for sqft is this, period. The town sets the rates, adjusts as needed (we know that story)

When you're insuring a property it's mostly for the cost of rebuilding the structure on the property so that's not an apples to apples comparison. An acre of Winni waterfront should be taxed more than an acre of land in an obscure part of town. Just as an acre of commercial property should be taxed more than an acre of residential property. I think the big question is, how much more.

[ushaggerb]

Originally Posted by Biggd

But it's the towns fault he can't sell it because the taxes are too high. I'm sure all his other bills are over the top also! How much do you think his landscaping bill is?
How many people need an estate that big?
The customer base for a property like that is pretty small.

Go to Southeast LA. Go to East Cleveland. Go to South Chicago. Ask those people what they make of your financial problems. They'd be throwing stones at you. You have financial problems they only wish they could have. You probably complain about the fact you got overcharged for a burger yesterday. They didn't eat yesterday. You complain about your car having engine problems. They don't own one. You've created a whole forum on targeting some guy regarding his "lucky" problems. Why?

[fatlazyless]

Well ...... the Town of Alton gets $847/day, paid by Bob, everyday of the year, regardless the weather, and with the new tax change, none of it is deductible off his federal taxes starting January 11, 2019, on a day by day basis.

January 11 to December 31, day after day after day after day ..... $847/day paid to the Town of Alton ...... this money should be well spent and do a lot of good things for the people of the Town of Alton.

Bob has hired an experienced attorney and filed suit against the town in Belknap Superior Court to try to get his property tax bill lowered to what it should be, so's he can sell Longview to a buyer. Apparently, no one wants to be paying $847/day in real non-deductible money from Jan 11- Dec 31 for Longview. The $10,000 deductible limit goes into effect starting on January 11 for Bob because his Alton property tax is $309,230/year.

After all, when one gets hungry for lunch, you cannot eat the view.

Back in the day, a big view like this at a state park would have a pedestal mounted binocular on a swivel, somewhat similar to a rangefinder on a navy warship, and you would drop a dime into the slot to turn on the big view ...... yo-ho-ho!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by ushaggerb

Go to Southeast LA. Go to East Cleveland. Go to South Chicago. Ask those people what they make of your financial problems. They'd be throwing stones at you. You have financial problems they only wish they could have. You probably complain about the fact you got overcharged for a burger yesterday. They didn't eat yesterday. You complain about your car having engine problems. They don't own one. You've created a whole forum on targeting some guy regarding his "lucky" problems. Why?

Hmmm...the places you mention in your own rant are all bastions of democratic control...places that have, through poor management, and extremely, liberal policies have degraded to third world conditions while the “leaders” of these ****-holes walk by human feces, vomit and drugged out bodies to get to their subways and home to their gated mansions. Why?

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Hmmm...the places you mention in your own rant are all bastions of democratic control...places that have, through poor management, and extremely, liberal policies have degraded to third world conditions while the “leaders” of these ***-holes walk by human feces, vomit and drugged out bodies to get to their subways and home to their gated mansions. Why?

LOL... most don't have a clue what you just said!

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by swnoel

LOL... most don't have a clue what you just said!

Just need to google “what’s happening to California” to know.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

Just need to google “what’s happening to California” to know.

We can similarly look at the poorest states in the nation, or the least safe, or the least healthy - which are "Red states" and blame their issues on failed policies.

Better yet, though, is to stop turning everything into a partisan issue where all the blame goes on the other guy and instead listen, compromise, and come up with real solutions that don't involve finger pointing and blame. There's a reason I am not affiliated with a political party and choose to support people and policies rather than always do what "my" party says.

[Hillcountry]

Originally Posted by Garcia

We can similarly look at the poorest states in the nation, or the least safe, or the least healthy - which are "Red states" and blame their issues on failed policies.

Better yet, though, is to stop turning everything into a partisan issue where all the blame goes on the other guy and instead listen, compromise, and come up with real solutions that don't involve finger pointing and blame. There's a reason I am not affiliated with a political party and choose to support people and policies rather than always do what "my" party says.

No finger pointing or blame...just stark, reality.
I agree on having no affiliation with any “party” though...one side is as bad as the other in most cases.
You must admit, however, the levels of opposition, resistance and violence is tipped toward “one party” in particular...

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by Hillcountry

No finger pointing or blame...just stark, reality.
I agree on having no affiliation with any “party” though...one side is as bad as the other in most cases.
You must admit, however, the levels of opposition, resistance and violence is tipped toward “one party” in particular...

I don't agree - I think both parties are equally to blame. Should the Whitewater investigation have gone off the rails as it did? No. Should the Russian investigation? No. Should Garland have been denied a hearing let alone a vote? No. Should Kavanaugh's process been dragged into the sewer? No. Should the ACA have been passed with no Republican votes? No. Should the recent tax bill been passed with no Democratic support? No. Each side claims to be taking the high road but IMHO both continue to sink to new lows.

[Hillcountry]

I hit the thanks button by mistake but you sound like a nice guy so I’ll leave it there...

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

My apologies for not being accurate. It is not the taxation that needs to be fair or equal, it is the appraisal process and valuation of individual properties. A town cannot say, "Hey, here's a rich guy's house. Let's triple the valuation so we can tax him more.". The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

My point was that I believe putting a property into current use is a state policy and a town cannot deny a property owner that option. I think the adjustment to valuation is also set at the state level. The RSA says the appraisals shall be set at "at valuations based upon the current use values established by the {state} board".

The tax rate is based on the spending of the town spread over the available tax base of property. If a town wants to spend itself into high taxation, that is certainly the right of its residents to decide that.

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.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

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.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by jeffk

The valuation is supposed to approximate actual market value as determined by uniform (across the state) methods.

This is an very interesting point with respect to this home. Typically, the market value of the property would reflect the value of the land plus the building cost plugged into some reasonable formula. But what happens when the owner spends so much on the building, that no one else can afford to buy it? This seems to be the case here. Should the town suffer because he built a property that is not marketable? Or should the tax assessment reflect the value of the land plus the building cost plugged into some reasonable formula?

[Descant]

Building cost is often not related to market value. Spend $40K to install a swimming pool and you may not have increased the market value at all. Spend $40K on a new kitchen and you may have increased market value by $60K.

[fatlazyless]

Bob is from southern Maine ..... he grew up there ..... he raced cars there .... and, he's left this mansion known as Longview behind to go back to Maine. His family and friends are all in Maine.

At age-91 with more than 300-million dollars in the bank, selling this Longview property for the reduced price of 9-million dollars will probably not make any difference to him. He probably just wants to sell it because with his race track in Loudon sold, he's gone back to Maine, and he has no use for the big house on Winnipesaukee. http://theautoblonde.com/bob-bahre-car-collection/ ……. Bob likes Maine!

Maybe he would actually prefer to donate the 19-waterfront acre mansion to the southern Maine Scouts http://pinetreebsa.org via a 100-year, one dollar/year lease to be used for a Maine young scouts, organized weekend get-a-way, go-to spot used by many different young people from Maine for the next hundred years and beyond.

Maybe, all things considered, he would feel better about donating the property as opposed to selling it? Is this a doable way out?

[Shrimpbrain]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Bob is from southern Maine ..... he grew up there ..... he raced cars there .... and, he's left this mansion known as Longview behind to go back to Maine. His family and friends are all in Maine.

At age-91 with more than 300-million dollars in the bank, selling this Longview property for the reduced price of 9-million dollars will probably not make any difference to him. He probably just wants to sell it because with the race track in Loudon sold, he's gone back to Maine, and he has no use for the big house on the lake. He likes Maine.

Maybe he would actually prefer to donate it to the southern Maine Boy Scouts http://pinetreebsa.org via a 100-year, one dollar/year lease to be used for a Boy Scout weekend get-a-way, go-to spot used by many different young people from Maine.

Maybe, all things considered, he would feel better about donating the property as opposed to selling it? Is this a doable way out?

We have to be correct in our wording. The Boy Scouts I believe are not called Boy Scouts now. They are just called SCOUTS ever since they allowed girls into the BOYS SCOUT. And NOPE I will not donate a Dime to this SCAM now. It's terrible how the millennials can't except this Country . Just another great cause going down the drain due to politics...

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Shrimpbrain

We have to be correct in our wording. The Boy Scouts I believe are not called Boy Scouts now. They are just called SCOUTS ever since they allowed girls into the BOYS SCOUT. And NOPE I will not donate a Dime to this SCAM now. It's terrible how the millennials can't except this Country . Just another great cause going down the drain due to politics...

"can't except"..or..can't accept?

IMO "millennials" love this country just as much as other generations have.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

Building cost is often not related to market value. Spend $40K to install a swimming pool and you may not have increased the market value at all. Spend $40K on a new kitchen and you may have increased market value by $60K.

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the owner has "over-improved" the property to the point where it is not marketable, or additional improvements are not longer increasing market value, isn't that his fault? Shouldn't he still pay taxes on the improvements?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the owner has "over-improved" the property to the point where it is not marketable, or additional improvements are not longer increasing market value, isn't that his fault? Shouldn't he still pay taxes on the improvements?

"Improvements" are only improvements if somebody wants to buy them. (Willing buyer, willing seller) No market, no value, no tax. If I put on an addition, and nobody wants to buy my indoor movie theater, it still has added value in the square footage because it can be used for other purposes.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Descant

"Improvements" are only improvements if somebody wants to buy them. (Willing buyer, willing seller) No market, no value, no tax. If I put on an addition, and nobody wants to buy my indoor movie theater, it still has added value in the square footage because it can be used for other purposes.

Normally that would be true. But let's say you have a house that is already so expensive that it can only be sold at a fraction of its cost. The market value is capped way below replacement value because virtually nobody but you can afford to buy it.

Now let's say you put on a new wing to house a movie theatre. In this case, you have not increased the market value of the home (its already at its cap), but you would still expect an increase in taxes.

More reading here. Note that in the case I describe there is a sharp split between the sales comparison approach and the cost approach, both of which are valid. https://www.iaao.org/Media/Pubs/Property_Owner.pdf