The New Hampshire View Tax

[Updates below.]

AP via Breitbart.com: 'View Tax' Triggers Revolt in Rural N.H.

By KATHARINE WEBSTER
Associated Press Writer

ORFORD, N.H.

The one-room cabin David Bischoff built in a cow pasture three years ago has no electricity, no running water, no phone service and no driveway. What it does have is a wide-open view of nearby hills and distant mountains - which makes it seven times more valuable than if it had no view, according to the latest townwide property assessment. He expects his property taxes to shoot up accordingly.

Bischoff and other Orford residents bitterly call that a "view tax," and they are leading a revolt against it that has gained support in many rural towns in New Hampshire.

State officials say there is no such thing as a "view tax" - it is a "view factor," and it has always been a part of property assessments. The only change is that views have become so valuable in some towns that assessors are giving them a separate line on appraisal records.

The change has stirred passions in Orford, a town of 1,040 that overlooks the Connecticut River and has views of neighboring Vermont and the White Mountains.

Reading this headline on Drudge, I'm thinking an actual revolt is taking place. I'm thinking people are telling their "authorities" to stuff their fucking taxes, not showing up to court hearings, resisting arrest, withholding the taxes that are allegedly owed.

It's what want to hear. It's what ought to happen.

One big reason the reassessment has alarmed townspeople in Orford and beyond is that housing prices - and consequently property taxes - are shooting up in New England because of an influx of vacation-home buyers and retirees willing to pay top dollar for beautiful views.

Perhaps, just maybe, some of these people will explicitly realize that there is utterly no sense in the state demanding ever-increasing portions of their wealth without even a token corresponding increase in the use of the socialized resources within which they ensnare us. They've done nothing, and yet the state threatens them with police violence if they refuse to do their "civic duty."

The Orford Board of Selectmen, of which Bischoff is chairman, voted in September to set aside the revaluation by Avitar Associates of New England until the Legislature comes up with objective standards for valuing views.

I can only hope more people openly groan at the very prospect. The government - ruled by media and interest group pressure; shackled to playing popularity contests with resources that aren't theirs; in every direction buffeted by winds that rarely have anything to do with what's right - is going to find an objective standard by which to judge the best way to steal from the people it was supposed to be protecting?

I'm glad I keep my hair close-cropped because I'd have ripped it out by now.

UPDATED 11/1/2005 2:22pm
I wonder what the Free State Project folks think about this? I see nothing on their front page or in the news section of their forum.

In other news on the subject...

New Hampshire Union Leader: View tax fight splits Orford

Town Treasurer Carl Cassel said Selectmen Chairman David Bischoff and Selectman Paul Carreiro have a conflict of interest because they own view properties.

Franklin responded that every town has similar conflicts they need to rise above, since selectmen are the ultimate assessing authority.

Bischoff said Avitar relied on a few big land sales to set the value of views across the entire town. That led to flawed results that increased one parcel's value by a factor of 14, he said.

"Someone will have to prove to me that a two-acre lot in Orford is worth $350,000," he said.

How to prove it...how to prove it...well, if it sells for that much, you can be sure at least one person values it at that price. But that isn't solace to the current owner.

BTLA member Michele LeBrun noted that if the town undervalues views, average homeowners without views will pay artificially high taxes.

Avitar President and CEO Gary Roberge said that view values on 108 of 131 parcels ranged from $25,000 to $50,000. One was set at a town high of $300,000. View properties are jumping in value the way waterfront property did in the 1990s, he said.

"It is market value that everything is governed by, and I believe we've captured that market value," he said.

Franklin told Roberge he did not show enough of his analysis for homeowners to know whether their home is assessed correctly.

Copyright © 2005

This whole thing stinks and what entities like Avitar are doing amounts to a friggin' guessing game. They aren't wagering their money on an actual sale where one's values are put to the test. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

Boston Globe: Orford defends decision to ignore "view tax" (October 17, 2005)

Selectmen for Orford went before a state board Monday to defend their rejection of a so-called "view tax" assessors recently assigned to mountain and rural views on 129 properties in their town.

The hearing revealed a deep divide between Orford residents whose assessments shot up because of a view and the approximately 500 homeowners without views.

Selectman Paul Carreiro said the assessment process was so deeply flawed and subjective the town could not defend the 2005 revaluation by Avitar Associates of New England.

[...]

During a break in the hearing, Carreiro vowed to defy any tax board order to use the 2005 assessments, saying he is unwilling to make unhappy taxpayers go through lengthy and expensive appeals.

"I will not sign anything," he said. "Civil disobedience is what this country was founded on."

Indeed. However, are you willing to take it to the degree They did?

Gary Roberge, president of Avitar, acknowledged that his assessors made some errors, but said his company re-assessed the view factor on all Orford properties after several people complained.

He suggested a big part of the problem lies in the state's heavy reliance on property taxes to fund nearly everything, instead of a general sales or income tax.

"Unfortunately, people who have lived there all their lives, whose property has gone down through their families, can no longer afford to stay there," Roberge said. "It's not fair market value that's the unfortunate part. The property tax system is the unfortunate part."

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

This is exactly the kind of sentiment behind the push for a Texas state income tax. The government wants more revenue and has begun to bump up against the barriers of popular resistance to the processes already in place.

Thus, I present to you in the Concord Monitor, an op-ed by a David Irwin: Thank 'Pledge' for the view tax:

The once proud Yankees of Orford have degenerated into a bunch of sniveling whiners.

[...]

Orford's an unlikely site for a debate over property taxes. It's the town that gave us Mel Thomson, and Thomson gave us New Hampshire politics as we know it, including the property tax as the primary source of government revenue.

[...]

Thomson gained the Republican nomination by defeating incumbent Walter Peterson, who had suggested the state might need additional sources of revenue. To Thomson, that raised the specter of a sales or income tax, and he went around putting up road signs, some handmade, displaying exactly eight letters: Ax the tax.

Mr. Irwin says this is the "most succinct philosophy in the entire history of political thought." That notion deserves a post all on its own.

Opponents of the view tax generally make this argument: People whose properties have remarkable views are being assessed for something beyond their control, and the additional taxes levied on these properties often cause a hardship for farmers and others who occupied the land long before New Hampshire property values soared.

The argument is nonsense. Property taxes are based on market value, and that market value is always beyond the control of the individual property owner.

[...]

Owners of waterfront properties have seen their values increase exponentially in a market apparently fueled by the low interest rates, the maturing of the baby boom generation and speculative fever. Property owners on the southern tier have seen properties increase in value because of the spillover of population from Massachusetts.

None of those complex economic factors is any more under the control of the individual property owner than the turning of the foliage in the Vermont hills across the river from Orford.

What the fuck is going on here? The owner of property has no control over the market value of that property? There are a number of things a land owner can do that influences how other people might value his or her property. You can improve the lot by clearing brush, planting attractive trees, mowing the grass, and building effective drainage or irrigation systems. You can improve the facilities and buildings located on the property with fresh coats of paint, repairing or upgrading their utilities, and renovating their interiors to increase aesthetics and ease of use.

You can also leave rusting cars and other junk out in your front yard, cracked foundations unrepaired, water wells caved-in, cracked windows facing the street, and legal entanglements unresolved.

Furthermore, the actual market value of a property is not known until it is sold voluntarily. Up to that point, it is all speculation based on guesses and comparisons. In a society that respects the private ownership of property (a society we do not live in), that property cannot be sold until the owner says so. No matter how many offers he or she gets, the final decision is theirs.

It is true that beyond the kinds of actions given as examples above, you still can't really force others to change their evaluation of a property. That's a process that belongs solely to the individual. It is also true that what happens on the and to the property of others adjacent to or involved with the property of the owner in question is rarely within direct control of the owner. From those perspectives, Mr. Irwin is correct.

And the hardship the view tax causes some of the people of Orford isn't imposed upon them by the assessors. It's a function of a political system that was cast in concrete in 1972 when Orford sent its school board chairman to the State House. They should stop sniveling and live with what they wrought.

Copyright 1997-2005 Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot

Again, in one sense he's right. This is what "the voters" have asked for and the consequences of that "choice" are theirs to bear.

On the other hand, there are those who did not participate in those votes, those who have changed their minds since voting, and those who didn't vote against income or property taxes. The analysis gets muddier here, but if this is a free society, then the consent of the governed can be revoked and modified.

In this case, these people who suddenly face thousands of extra dollars in property tax "liability" shouldn't be insulted as "sniveling whiners." They should be supported in their fight against the system and then educated to the fact that their anti-tax stance should include not just sales and income taxes (and what about the federal income tax?), but property taxes as well. All taxes should be opposed and for the same reason: they constitute theft.

Posted by Drizzten at October 31, 2005 09:24 PM