Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
It's just the way it was presented that makes it sound that way.
Properties with wonderful vistas (wonderful by the standards of the average home buyer) have a higher property value compared with houses next door to a brand new trash dump -- even if the houses are identical and in the same town. When houses are re-appraised for property tax purposes, location is quite properly considered. That all the anti-tax-activist phrase "view tax" means.
|
Most states base your property taxes on how much similar homes are selling for in your neighborhood. By deliberately increasing the value of the one home over another just because the view is better out the window is just another way government can increase your tax burden. And as stated views are subjective. I also would prefer to have the trees. Are they also going to charge higher property taxes if your yard is greener than your neighbor's? If you have 10 trees on your property and your neighbor has 5, is your property worth more? Trees can be sold for money.
Apache
Quote:
Towns cannot impose a separate tax or fee on a property because of its view. But the tax assessment can reflect the view's effect on a property's fair market value. Towns must assess property based on its present true and actual value (i. e. , fair market value), which means the price the owner can obtain in any transaction that is not a forced or auction sale (CGS § 12-63).
A property's fair market value depends on many different factors, including its location and physical characteristics. The statutes do not specify the factors towns must include or exclude. Case law suggests that towns must weigh all of the factors that ultimately affect the property's fair market value:
A state, when assessing tangible property for tax purposes, has the right to use any fair formula which will give effect to the intangible factors which influence the real value of the property. All that can be required is that the assessors exercise an honest judgment, based upon the information they possess or are able to acquire (72 AmJur 2d, pp. 754-5).
|
Quote:
WHEN John Kryszpin moved into his expensive new home atop Taine Mountain in Burlington, Conn., three months ago and looked out his picture window for the first time, he was thrilled with the view that stretches more than 20 miles across hills and valleys and into Massachusetts.
But his pleasure turned to outrage a month later when the Town of Burlington sent him a tax bill for $6,000 that included a surcharge of $1,150 and labeled the amount ''view.''
Exactly how many residents of Burlington have had view taxes put on their properties is unclear, but there could be be scores. The deepening dispute over what some property owners describe as new and bizarre forms of taxation in Burlington, according to some residents, is the biggest local battle since the massacre of settlers by Redcoats and Indians at Forty Fort in 1778.
Some legislative and academic experts in the fields of property valuation and taxation in Connecticut have raised questions about the legality of imposing a surcharge for such things as views, architectural style and the use of brick exteriors rather than wood.
Town officials insist that they are within their rights in adding the surcharges because pleasant views and fancy architecture add to property values.
|