LACONIA Tax Increases

[trackeer]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I don't know how old you are but I'm 63 and I need less as I get older. Material things just don't mean as much anymore. Friends and family are more important than ever now. Having more just complicates life.
I have the funds to buy what ever I want but now I only buy what I need. I find I have too much now and want to get rid of things. That's my goal over the next few years as I move into retirement mode. A different mind set comes with getting older. I'm done with the accumulation faze. I see my children going through that now. They have sooo much crap they can't move!
That's why storage facilities are popping up everywhere.

Biggd,

That is exactly the way I feel now, I'm 62 and the things I wanted even 5 years ago has changed, something comes to mind, Minimizing. Your right on, good post, couldn't have summed it up better.

Towns like Moutltonboro and Tuftonboro have low taxes, course they are hardly welfare communities either.

[trackeer]

Originally Posted by AC2717

couple of thoughts to this topic:

Budget - the town needs to reel in spending (every town does) but what amazing me is the tax rate is adjusted one way and the market controls your value another way- fact of the matter is your property is only worth what someone is willing to pay at that particular point in time. One day my place could be worth $50k another day it could be worth $200k. By the town using market value are they willing to buy your place for that amount of money?
when Town needs (wants) more money only way to get it is taxes - for some reason its the only "business" that can afford to operate at a loss repeatedly and stay in business.

Very few towns even in MA have high property values with high taxes, The City of Boston has an extremely low property tax and values are high and it still has a number of services, you still don't even have to pay extra to put your trash out and they take everything, and I mean everything. It is very rare that market values are not impacted by the property taxes on them. Go to any town and look at the asking or selling price of a property and then look at the taxes - in my town for example home prices are relatively cheaper than average in MA, but the tax rate is in the top 5 in the state. 1700 sqft home on a 1/4arce will hit you with $6,600 in taxes and a purchase value of mid $300k, or $550 a month. Now add that to the mortgage of about $2,200 or so and you are now looking at $2,750 a month and then utilities, repairs, insurance, and other life expenses. - We actually choose to rent in our town because it is way cheaper annually to live at this point in time (spare me the you don't own it speech and I will spare you look at the total amount you are paying for your property over time speech)- the days of buying a property for $300k and selling it for $600k in less than 20 years are over.
take the same property with a lower tax rate, and the seller could get more for the house - which translates to them spending more in the economy generating more income all around instead of money just going to the town and it disappearing.

now take the 2nd home market that is a topic in this thread - in Laconia and Belknap county. - 2nd home - if not buying cash - loans are very hard to obtain and at a much higher rate - a ding against the market value, if in a condo or cottage association (we own in a cottage association in Laconia)depending on when it was formed the County makes you put a provision in your bylaws that say it cannot be used as your primary residence, and in turn are "not supposed" to occupy year round and therefore rent it year round to one person you could not make it your primary residence even if you wanted to - so now we are paying taxes on services that we cannot use, cannot vote in the town and again a ding to the market value, and if you are an out of state person you are treated like one even though you pay your "Fare Share" of local taxes - ding on market value. - All the way trying to better yourself and they punish you at every turn, I do not need to be rewarded from others for me trying to have success in my life, but I should not be hit harder because I chose to work 3 jobs my whole life to get where I am today, and everyone else can choose to do this as well.

"taxation without representation"
Why am I not able to vote in local elections? Voiced concerns actually heard(opinion)? I understand national elections like Presidential, US Senate and Congress races, but for local and state level there should be no reason that you should not be able to partake especially because you pay taxes and what is done has a direct affect on your property, its value and your own well being. One town has nothing to do with another town when it comes to operation. Yes I chose to purchase the property and all these issues that come with it, I am not debating that fact - when Laconia was operating with town meetings the tide was a very different one from today with balloting -

Long and Short - Every town, especially Laconia, should be held by their constituents to a standard of a realistic budget much like people have to run their households, but when they are un-checked by voting - and all these "waterfront" properties that non-Laconia residents own, you pit the residences of the town against the non residents and with the residents being the only ones with a voice, it is forcing the burden on the non residents, and will continue to do so because the residents are left alone, unaffected by the town decisions monetarily, this will not change, at the end of the day it boils down to your pocket your hand vs your pocket town's hand.

Simple Economic fact that cannot be disputed - less taxation generates more spending and savings wealth, and that spending is real estate, goods and services, you name it, all which benefits the community as a whole (from banks, to dunkin donuts, to the 15 year old mowing lawns). Savings wealth is used at a later date for a "rainy day" or passed to generations to use, and most likely put into savings plans that hopefully generate future wealth that is then taxed accordingly and generates more.

I had started to type a similar comment, but your are correct, the value of something is only what someone is willing to pay.
It's fine to offer the exceptional things in a community, but not at the expense of providing the services our Taxes are collected for, if you can't afford to fix roads, drive around Laconia and notice the Beware of PotHole Signs, then investing in a fancy theater shouldn't be on the list of things to do.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by trackeer

Biggd,

That is exactly the way I feel now, I'm 62 and the things I wanted even 5 years ago has changed, something comes to mind, Minimizing. Your right on, good post, couldn't have summed it up better.

Towns like Moutltonboro and Tuftonboro have low taxes, course they are hardly welfare communities either.

I've been kind of a gear head all my life, into fast cars, motor cycles, and power boats. I have a boat, a jet ski, an old Corvette and I find more pleasure now in a peaceful cruise in my Kayak or a hike up a mountain, go figure.
A true funny story I'd like to share, when I was in my 30's at a family wedding I overheard a couple of old guys, not much older than me now, talking about sex. One guy tells then other, "I get more pleasure hanging a door". Thankfully I'm not there yet, LOL!

[broguy]

Originally Posted by kjkam

The idea that the valuation is equal to fair market value is always a farce, in almost every case the "fair market value" used to determine taxes is a fraction of actual value. Example Channel (Winni marine) "fair market value" $1.423M for tax purposes, actually sold for $3.4M. So actual value was 2.4 times the assesed "fair market value" By that math a water front home assessed at $775K should sell in today's market for $1.8M. Reality is that home sold for $900k this year, so the actual multiplier from actual value to assessed value is 1.16x of the assessed value. Looking at residential property non water front the actual values are running in the 1.4-1.5 times the assessed value.

Everyone has to pay taxes, and taxing on assessed value may be fair, but what this shows is that assessments of residential waterfront property are set much closer to the actual value than on non water front or commercial property. The math does not lie, leave that to the politicians.

I don't believe this would be an accurate comparison. The $3.4M is the purchase of the "real estate" and the "business." The business isn't assessed for property tax purposes. Just the real estate. So the actual purchase price of the property would be less than the $3.4M. I don't know what that is.

[kjkam]

I would find it unlikely that the $3.4m includes the “business” because $3.4m is the value recorded on the deeds and subject to the 1.5% real estate transfer tax. Any good business person would break the sale into 2 parts, one for the real estate asserts, one for the other assets of the business to reduce liability under the transfer tax.

[trackeer]

Originally Posted by Biggd

I've been kind of a gear head all my life, into fast cars, motor cycles, and power boats. I have a boat, a jet ski, an old Corvette and I find more pleasure now in a peaceful cruise in my Kayak or a hike up a mountain, go figure.
A true funny story I'd like to share, when I was in my 30's at a family wedding I overheard a couple of old guys, not much older than me now, talking about sex. One guy tells then other, "I get more pleasure hanging a door". Thankfully I'm not there yet, LOL!

LOL,

Not there yet either, but I'm sure at some point it quits working like other things.
I hear ya, I've pretty much been a motorhead myself, we bought a second waverunner this year and for the most part that's how we boat now. We have a 28 footer that doesn't fit into the cove and sits stored, another victim of minimizing coming.
Pretty bad when we look back at stories and refer to old folks back in the day the age we are now, yeeeek

[trackeer]

Originally Posted by kjkam

I would find it unlikely that the $3.4m includes the “business” because $3.4m is the value recorded on the deeds and subject to the 1.5% real estate transfer tax. Any good business person would break the sale into 2 parts, one for the real estate asserts, one for the other assets of the business to reduce liability under the transfer tax.

Not to interject, I believe Vin sold it as a single package, which would have included inventory etc, which wasn't that much anyway.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by trackeer

LOL,

Not there yet either, but I'm sure at some point it quits working like other things.
I hear ya, I've pretty much been a motorhead myself, we bought a second waverunner this year and for the most part that's how we boat now. We have a 28 footer that doesn't fit into the cove and sits stored, another victim of minimizing coming.
Pretty bad when we look back at stories and refer to old folks back in the day the age we are now, yeeeek

We are our parents now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Biggd

We are our parents now.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

You can also ask the question : "When the heck did we become the older generation? "

And the answer is "Beats me! It just kinda snuck up on me. "

Dave

Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Rattler]

I have had several exchanges with the Laconia assessor's office since we saw that our land value assessment was increased approximately 23.5%. In typical city of Laconia fashion, this increase was done without warning or explanation from the assessor's office. While it showed up in the Vision database during the summer, the first official notice was seeing it on the December tax bill.

The frustrating part was that individuals in the assessor's office, given multiple attempts, could not explain to me in simple terms how they arrived at the increase. They tried to pull a snow job on me by producing "comps" that weren't really comps and tons of meaningless numbers and ratios. However, they could never walk me through the specific calculations that led to the 23.5% number. I finally gave up, which is what they wanted to happen in the first place.

My feeling is that the city of Laconia views the assessor's office as one big ATM that they can turn to in order to get immediate cash to fund their mismanagement of the city. This is because the assessor's office can play games with "market-based" assessments to make up whatever shortfall the city encounters in its bloated budget. This game playing helps the city increase property tax revenues without the need to significantly hike (and draw unwanted attention to) its outrageous property tax rate.

Belt-tightening and budget cutting are not concepts that the city of Laconia is familiar with or uses to manage city finances. Unfortunately, "spend more and tax more" appears to be their guiding management philosophy.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Rattler

I have had several exchanges with the Laconia assessor's office since we saw that our land value assessment was increased approximately 23.5%. In typical city of Laconia fashion, this increase was done without warning or explanation from the assessor's office. While it showed up in the Vision database during the summer, the first official notice was seeing it on the December tax bill.

The frustrating part was that individuals in the assessor's office, given multiple attempts, could not explain to me in simple terms how they arrived at the increase. They tried to pull a snow job on me by producing "comps" that weren't really comps and tons of meaningless numbers and ratios. However, they could never walk me through the specific calculations that led to the 23.5% number. I finally gave up, which is what they wanted to happen in the first place.

My feeling is that the city of Laconia views the assessor's office as one big ATM that they can turn to in order to get immediate cash to fund their mismanagement of the city. This is because the assessor's office can play games with "market-based" assessments to make up whatever shortfall the city encounters in its bloated budget. This game playing helps the city increase property tax revenues without the need to significantly hike (and draw unwanted attention to) its outrageous property tax rate.

Belt-tightening and budget cutting are not concepts that the city of Laconia is familiar with or uses to manage city finances. Unfortunately, "spend more and tax more" appears to be their guiding management philosophy.

I used Atty. Phil Brouillard from Laconia to file an abatement. He worked on contingency - his fee was 50% of the first year's tax savings that he was able to secure for the client. No risk to the client whatsoever. His number is 603-524-4450. No reason to let City of Laconia get away with this. Good luck.

[Descant]

Excerpted

Originally Posted by Rattler

My feeling is that the city of Laconia views the assessor's office as one big ATM that they can turn to in order to get immediate cash to fund their mismanagement of the city. This is because the assessor's office can play games with "market-based" assessments to make up whatever shortfall the city encounters in its bloated budget. This game playing helps the city increase property tax revenues without the need to significantly hike (and draw unwanted attention to) its outrageous property tax rate.

Belt-tightening and budget cutting are not concepts that the city of Laconia is familiar with or uses to manage city finances. Unfortunately, "spend more and tax more" appears to be their guiding management philosophy.

You can also appeal to the NH Board of Tax and Land Appeals. If, as you suggest, Laconia (Vision) is just making up numbers to avoid raising taxes directly, the BTLA can rectify such actions. Basically, Laconia, or any other town, can't just make things up without somebody from the state looking over their shoulder. The purpose of BTLA is to make things simple and accessible to the public without going to Superior Court. https://www.nh.gov/btla

[upthesaukee]

A house up the street from me here in Alton, in the rural residential zone, was purchased in 2004 for $221k. It sold 11 years later for $250k, in 2015. Then it sold again approximately 18 mos later in 2017 for $274k.
Watching the real estate transactions weekly in the Baysider as well as Ray Sanborn's column in the Laconia Sun, I have been amazed by the sales over the last few years, and not only for waterfront property. Our street is about a half mile of the lake, and no lake view (think "view tax" &#128521 .

In the past years, my increases have mainly been in land value. This past year, the increases for land were minimal, but the value of my home went up substantially. Looking at this other house on my street, there is a minimal increase on the land, but a substantial increase on the house value. Also note, the assessment was done prior to the house sale (sold in November). We may not like it, but it seems that house values are increasing throughout oute area, and perhaps state-wide.

Just a view from my little corner of the world...

Dave

Sent from my SM-T580 using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Biggd]

FYI, if my math is correct 2004 to 2015 is 11 years not 21.😁

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[upthesaukee]

Yup, corrected. A case of FFF; fat freaking fingers! 😁

Dave

Sent from my SM-G930V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[lagoon]

Waterfront taxes on the lakes are a real joke, (as if no one knows that already). The surrounding towns know that lake folks by in large do not vote as they are usually not year round. The Mcmansion folks aside, they can afford it, the old non winterized lake homes are disappearing rapidly. Those folks can't keep up with the taxes and then lack of a real voice as well.

Alton lake front taxes ranged from small reductions to over 35% increase in value in one year. This was for comparable properties as well, not old versus new or non winterized versus winterized.

It will not be long before the lake edges will be the non involved ultra rich and the rest will be lower taxed hard working folks who can't even afford to be near the lakes. I believe this will hurt all of the surrounding towns a how they govern.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by lagoon

Waterfront taxes on the lakes are a real joke, (as if no one knows that already). The surrounding towns know that lake folks by in large do not vote as they are usually not year round. The Mcmansion folks aside, they can afford it, the old non winterized lake homes are disappearing rapidly. Those folks can't keep up with the taxes and then lack of a real voice as well.

Alton lake front taxes ranged from small reductions to over 35% increase in value in one year. This was for comparable properties as well, not old versus new or non winterized versus winterized.

It will not be long before the lake edges will be the non involved ultra rich and the rest will be lower taxed hard working folks who can't even afford to be near the lakes. I believe this will hurt all of the surrounding towns a how they govern.

Amazed by those who don't understand this.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by lagoon

Waterfront taxes on the lakes are a real joke, (as if no one knows that already). The surrounding towns know that lake folks by in large do not vote as they are usually not year round. The Mcmansion folks aside, they can afford it, the old non winterized lake homes are disappearing rapidly. Those folks can't keep up with the taxes and then lack of a real voice as well.

Alton lake front taxes ranged from small reductions to over 35% increase in value in one year. This was for comparable properties as well, not old versus new or non winterized versus winterized.

It will not be long before the lake edges will be the non involved ultra rich and the rest will be lower taxed hard working folks who can't even afford to be near the lakes. I believe this will hurt all of the surrounding towns a how they govern.

Where's that like button?! This is a microcosm of what's happening across America.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

[Seaplane Pilot]

Perhaps an “Occupy Weirs Beach” event would attract attention to this crisis? Better bring some warm clothes!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

[jeffk]

I grew up in upstate New York over 50 years ago. There were towns and areas in those towns that were more "desirable" properties. The lots and houses were large and so were the valuations and associated property taxes. I'm sure that many that owned a good sized piece of land and maybe a small home in the expensive areas, bought cheap decades ago, sold off to a doctor or lawyer that cleared the land and built a big fancy house. The people that sold got out from under higher property tax, got a nice payment for the property, and built/bought a nice house in a more affordable area.

You could argue that these folks were "kicked out" of their property by rising values and associated taxes. You could also say they got a nice compensation that funded a comfortable retirement.

The same thing happens in urban renewal where run down buildings are replaced by fancy, and expensive, condos. The previous residents in the area have NO HOPE of affording one of the condos.

People have no "right" to occupy a piece of land. They can buy one and there are costs associated with it's upkeep, including taxes. If you can't afford the costs, you can't keep the property. In one form or another, that's been true for thousands of years.

Notice that my example includes no "lake" because the presence of the lake here is almost coincidental. Yes, being on the lake accelerates the increase of valuation but the process itself happens continually all over the world.

I sold my lake house to get out of the costs that would have been difficult to fund. In return, I have a VERY comfortable retirement. I have chosen to be happy in my circumstances. I valet my boat and enjoy the lake. I could be miserable because I was "forced" out of my lake house that I was entitled to but I just don't see it that way.

[Woody38]

Recently I have been scouring assessments in Laconia. Interesting that there are condos in the same complex, same square footage, essentially same view and the assessments vary. One would think they would basically be the same.

_______________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

[Descant]

Condition and finishes can make a difference in market value. 1970's shag rug vs. newly finished hardwood floors, Formica vs granite counters, etc. I think this shows up on the tax card as features, or condition.