Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfe-man
The homestead exemption in Florida is worth about $700 a year (no tax is payable on the first $50k of value at about 13 mills). Florida also has a 3% yearly cap on assessed value increases (the save our homes provision), with the cumulative savings being portable when a resident sells his or her residence and establishes a new one. You’re talking a few grand a year max. A higher yearly cap exists for commercial and non homestead properties (10%/year, I believe). One can debate whether this is good policy or bad, as it raises the bar for new homeowners at the expense of long term residents and non home owners, but the scope in Florida is decidedly different from what is being proposed here. I have an old camp on a very nice piece of land that I couldn’t reside in even if I wanted to; and I don’t want to. Assuming they would seek to close the lease-back loophole in the final version, adding another $25k to my already outrageous tax bill on a property where no one could live there anyway, when I have no say in the matter, would drive us away from NH just as a matter of principle - and I suspect I would not be alone. No one needs to feel sorry for me, of course, but whether I can afford that robbery is irrelevant. The local marina would lose $10k/year; the local restaurants and businesses another $10k minimum. Money spent on property manager, tradesman, cleaners, maintenance people, boat registration fees, thousands of dollars in rental tax for when we do rent it, etc., gone. The lake is beautiful, of course, but there are limits. I’m glad to see that cooler heads seem to be prevailing on this one. Excuse my ranting - I don’t often post here but this one struck me.
|
"(5) Properties that are not habitable during the winter months due to lack of
winterization, such as the absence of adequate heating, insulation, or plumbing designed for sub
freezing temperatures, as certified by the owner or a qualified inspector."
The proposed amendment covers that.