Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader was perusing the Washington Post when he came upon an interesting article concerning assessed values of homes in New Hampshire. The interesting bit was how the house’s assessed value was increased by the quality of the view from the house. So, if you house has a better view, the value of the house is increased, and your tax burden is likewise increased

The article details, in the early going, the plight of Brad Wilder among others. Wilder now has a view valued at over $200,000. This view costs him nearly $5,000 a year in new taxes. Another individual profiled, Bennett Nicholson has had to sell the house he hoped to spend the rest of his life in and move to Canada.

Here is how it works. A county assessor comes to your home. The assessor looks at your view and determines, using their own judgement, how much people would pay for that view. Then the value that the assessor decides is appropriate is assigned to the view and you get a tax bill.

Is your Maximum Leader the only one who thinks that this is more than a little unjust? Wouldn’t a reading of real estate values in an area be a better indicator of a house’s total value? Afterall, houses with good views are likely to sell for more than houses without a view all other things being equal. Suppose there are two indentical houses next to each other on the same street. Further suppose that one house has a spectacular view from the non-street side. Suppose that the otherwise identical house, due to a large outcropping of rock or something, has no significant view from the non-street side - does it follow that the house with the view would be worth significantly more?

Could one say that this tax policy is an unconstitutional taking of someone’s land?

Your Maximum Leader while mulling over this article wondered something… The purpose of the tax assessment seems to be to increase state revenues. (Which should go without saying.) But the implication of article is that the New Hampshire government hopes that out-of-staters who are buying second homes will be the ones to pay the tax. Could one thereby extrapolate that the government is using it tax power to “take” land from current owners with the intention that it be transferred to someone else who will pay the higher taxes and thereby increase revenues? How is this senario much different than the one that New London just won in the recent Kelo decision?

Okay… It is significantly different than Kelo, but the fact remains that the state appears to be targeting some residents of the state with higher taxes while not targeting others. And the common feature of those targeted is that they have property that is more highly valued by those who seek to own second homes. It all seems very unjust to your Maximum Leader.

Carry on.