From: Ellen K. 

Does this mean I get a reduction for the McMansion built on the next street
that can see into my formerly private yard?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:02:50 -0500, "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message :

>I can just see the new taxes.  Better air quality will qualily you for the
>'clean air' tax. A safe neighborhood will qualify one for a 'low crime' tax.
>Just think of the possibilities :-(
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10033745/page/2/
>
>Learning from the 'View Manual'
>So here, property assessors say, was their assignment: Try to judge each of
>the state's properties, and especially each vista, through the eyes of the
>view-hungry buyers who were driving the market. There were no state
>guidelines to help them compare views.
>
>"I hate saying that it's subjective," said Gary J. Roberge,
chief executive
>officer of the company that valued Wilder's view. "But it is."
>
>There are, in some cases, rules of thumb that appraisers can turn to for
>help. For instance, a view of a "name mountain," such as
Mount Washington or
>others in the famed Presidential Range, is usually worth more than a view of
>a less-famous peak. Also, 90 degrees of view is better than 45, and a river
>and hills are usually worth more than hills alone.
>
>But that is about as hard and fast as the business of valuing views seems to
>get.
>
>In an interview at his offices in Chichester, N.H., Roberge went through
>pages from a "View Manual," showing a range of vistas rated middling to
>spectacular.
>
>There was a "300" rated property, whose view had a barn up close and a
>mountain in the distance. "You've got a little bit of the
horizon," Roberge
>said. That little bit, in this case, was enough view to triple the land's
>value -- a difference of $96,000 or more for an average property in a place
>such as Plainfield, he said.
>
>Then Roberge got to a "500" view, with a lot more horizon and
distance. "It
>just goes on forever," Roberge said. It would add $192,000 to the same
>property.
>
>He looked at a "600" view, which was a panorama of mountains
and receding
>hills such as Wilder's in Plainfield. "If you were standing up there looking
>at it, it would blow you away," Roberge said. For that quality, Roberge
>said, land such as this would be worth six times its original value, for an
>increase of $240,000 just because of the view.
>
>To which some landowners say: That's all there is to it?
>
>"The formula sucks pond water," said John Frado, 60, whose property in
>Winchester jumped in value by $70,000 because of another assessing company's
>opinion of its overlook.
>
>Forcing residents out
>When Wilder contested his valuation in court, a local judge came to a
>similar, though more decorously worded, conclusion: The appraisal was "not
>supported by evidence of anything other than the subjective judgment of the
>appraising company." He ordered it reduced, though the case has been
>appealed.
>
>After protests across the state, state lawmakers are now considering ways to
>ensure that, in the future, assessors give more evidence to support the
>values they place on views.
>
>"What do you see?" asked state Rep. Betsey L. Patten (R).
"I want you to
>explain."
>
>For now, though, what residents call the "view tax" still has
many longtime
>residents worrying that the mountain on the distance will soon force them
>off the land beneath their feet. When farmer John Lynch, 65, found that his
>view had been valued at about $65,000, he confronted someone from the
>assessing company: "How do you think we're going to hang on here?"
>
>Lynch, who lives in the town of Hill, N.H., said that one of the odd parts
>about this controversy is that, with his attention always on the land, he
>rarely spends time gazing out at his valuable view.
>
>"You very seldom look," Lynch said. "Well, to see the
weather or the sunset
>. . . ." Suddenly, he was troubled by the thought of a tax on sunsets.
>
>"Oh," he said, "don't tell them about that."
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5