Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQ Members List Donate Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 02-07-2026, 04:17 PM   #11
John Mercier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 3,973
Thanks: 3
Thanked 678 Times in 561 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfe-man View Post
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.
John Mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.23543 seconds