NH Panorama Taxes make news

ApS · 11-17-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Di

It's like assessing the air you breathe.

Not exactly. In order to get a view, you (or a spec-builder) have to cut down a lot of trees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Once the waterfront was all bought up/scarce/ultra expensive, people wanted water access, so that property skyrocketed in value as well. Now, all thats left is property with views. They are joining the waterfront and the water access properties in popularity, exponentially increasing thier value and thus thier taxes...."

At least the State requires that waterfront homes keep a percentage of their trees.

Because they cut down hundreds of their own trees to enable their view, hillside trophy homes detract from everybody else's view of the Lakes Region's wooded hills and mountains.

I wonder: If those with a truly weighty "Panorama Tax" were to transplant replacement trees (to replace those that were cut for the view), are "Panorama Taxes" reduced for the loss of view?

.

Lin · 11-18-2005, 08:36 PM

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.

gtxrider · 11-19-2005, 09:03 AM

Isn't this a very subjective way to assess value? What may be a beautiful to one may be an eye sore to another. Case in point the Baher Estate. If this was in my line of site I would think the quality of the panorama had dropped so would my taxes drop? They build bigger and bigger houses blast more rock, cut down more trees and scar the landscape so your panorama taxes should be going down?

As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the BEER HOLDER"

11-18-2005, 08:36 PM	#2
Lin Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts & Moultonborough Posts: 673 Thanks: 41 Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts	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

11-19-2005, 09:03 AM	#3
gtxrider Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Piscataway, NJ Posts: 1,030 Thanks: 2 Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts	In who's eyes? Isn't this a very subjective way to assess value? What may be a beautiful to one may be an eye sore to another. Case in point the Baher Estate. If this was in my line of site I would think the quality of the panorama had dropped so would my taxes drop? They build bigger and bigger houses blast more rock, cut down more trees and scar the landscape so your panorama taxes should be going down? As they say "Beauty is in the eye of the BEER HOLDER"