New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?  (Read 4737 times)

Russell Kanning

  • Administrator
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 2487
  • Posts: 22815
  • The Nonviolent Revolution starts here
    • russellkanning.com blog
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2008, 09:10 PM NHFT »

2 or 3%
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2008, 06:39 AM NHFT »

I just got reassessed... I'm at 1.764% of property valuation.
Logged

LotharSNL

  • Guest
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2008, 09:56 AM NHFT »

If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden.  That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.

Oddly enough in NH that would increase your property taxes. The 96 acre lot could be placed under Current Use. While the two acre lot might not be entirely hardscaped.


Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98?  What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres?  I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it.  :)
Logged

dalebert

  • Middle Initials are T.M.I.
  • Insider
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 1876
  • Posts: 8000
  • Freedom- it's what's in your head
    • Prometheus Unchained
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2008, 10:17 AM NHFT »

Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98?  What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres?  I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it.  :)

Then whoever owned the other 96 acres would get stuck with more property taxes if they don't allow the use of the property by the general public. It's the exclusion of use by the others of undeveloped land that incurs the higher taxes by NH law.
Logged

LotharSNL

  • Guest
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2008, 02:11 PM NHFT »

Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98?  What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres?  I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it.  :)

Then whoever owned the other 96 acres would get stuck with more property taxes if they don't allow the use of the property by the general public. It's the exclusion of use by the others of undeveloped land that incurs the higher taxes by NH law.


Ah..  I see. Thank you.  So, if you owned 100 undeveloped acres, and put no trespassing signs up, your taxes go up?
Logged

Nat F

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 31
  • Posts: 134
    • Merrimack Forum
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2008, 03:30 PM NHFT »

Actually the land does not have to be open to all in order to enjoy a reduced property tax rate.  There are essentially three levels of property taxation.  The first is the full rate, charged on developed land and other land that does not fit the criteria needed for lower property taxes through "current use" designation.

The second category is called "current use" and basically requires ten acres (or more) of land.  A value is set for the land based on the amount of income the land would produce in it's current form (which must be farmland, timberland, wetland or land deemed unproductive such as ledge).  Taxes are then charged based on the "current use" value rather than the real estate full market value.

The last category is really a subcategory of current use land.  Any land with the current use designation can also be opened to skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting, hiking and nature observation.  If all six of those uses are allowed (other uses can be restricted by posting) then the current use assessment is reduced by 20%.

There are a ton of more specific requirements, plus penalties for removing land from current use equal to 10% of it's fair market value.  More info can be found at http://www.nhspace.org/cu.shtml

-Nat
Logged

maulotaur

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 12
  • Posts: 70
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2008, 05:13 PM NHFT »

More info can be found at http://www.nhspace.org/cu.shtml

Undeveloped land in NH is presumed to allow public use if it is not posted otherwise?  Or does that only apply to land designated as 'current use'?  And if so then how would you know since it would not be posted or could you assume that it is if it meets the criteria described as land being valid for designation as 'current use'?

-Paul
Logged

Nat F

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 31
  • Posts: 134
    • Merrimack Forum
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2008, 06:31 PM NHFT »

Undeveloped land in NH is presumed to allow public use if it is not posted otherwise?  Or does that only apply to land designated as 'current use'?  And if so then how would you know since it would not be posted or could you assume that it is if it meets the criteria described as land being valid for designation as 'current use'?

All land in NH is open to public access unless it's posted.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/635/635-4.htm

Quote from: NH Fish and Game
Common law in New Hampshire gives the public the right of access to land that's not posted. You won't find that in state law books, because it is common law, going back to the philosophy of New England's early colonists and supported over the centuries by case law. Our forefathers knew the importance of balancing the need for landowners' rights with that of the public good. On one hand, the landowner can make decisions about his or her land. On the other hand, the public should have limited rights to use and enjoy that land. The colonists held similar democratic notions about rivers, lakes, fish and wildlife.
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_landowner_hunter_FAQs.htm

I've quite surprised to hear that people presume land is not open to access.  Maybe it's just because I grew up in New England (Massachusetts though, not New Hampshire) but I'm accustomed to the idea that land is open to the public unless it's either posted or fenced in some way.

-Nat
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2008, 09:19 AM NHFT »

If you broke that up into a 2 acre lot, and a 96 acre lot, you could develop the 2 acre lot, and enjoy the entire 98, with must less a tax burden.  That is, if you don't mind sharing the 96 with whomever might want to wander around on it.

Oddly enough in NH that would increase your property taxes. The 96 acre lot could be placed under Current Use. While the two acre lot might not be entirely hardscaped.


Increase property taxes more so then if one homesteaded the entire 98?  What if the 96 acres were owned by a different entity then the one that owned the 2 acres?  I was thinking that the 96 acres could be sold to some out of state owner who just happened to be fine with their neighbor, living on the developed 2 acres, wandering around on it.  :)

Without knowing the exact valuation it would be hard to tell, but for example. The developed acres might be valued at $40,000+ each. While the CURRENT USE acres might be $400. Because the two acres were subdivided they would be valued at $80,000... but the other 96 would be valued at $38,400. If your house, outbuilding, and other hardscape equalled lets say 1/2 acre... then the 1/2 acre would be $20,000 with the other 97.5 acres at $39,000.
$80,000 two acres compared to $59,000 for the ninety-eight. Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.
Logged

maulotaur

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 12
  • Posts: 70
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2008, 11:27 PM NHFT »

Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.

How much better would the numbers be if you lived inside of an off-grid tiny house that was sitting on a frame (as in the equivalent of an RV) and did not create any structures on the property to keep it as 'current use' status with recreational access allowance?   

-Paul
Logged

Pat McCotter

  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1281
  • Posts: 4825
  • Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2008, 04:04 AM NHFT »

I have a friend with a camp (cottage) up north. His daughters - who hunt and fish with him - say they will stay at the camp when he gets indoor plumbing. ;D
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2008, 08:27 AM NHFT »

Throw in the twenty percent recreational discount and the number gets even better.

How much better would the numbers be if you lived inside of an off-grid tiny house that was sitting on a frame (as in the equivalent of an RV) and did not create any structures on the property to keep it as 'current use' status with recreational access allowance?   

-Paul

If the entire 98 were placed in Current Use, just multiply the current use rate times 98. So in this example $39,400...
But assessors could claim the RV is a permanent structure (not mobile) and thus tax it and require the land under it to be taxed at full developed value. Certain towns have limits on how long a habitated RV may remain on the property before being deemed permanent.
Also important to understand that a $40,000 assessment for an acre  is around my area... it varies depending on local real estate market.
Logged

maulotaur

  • Independent Thinker
  • *
  • Karma: 12
  • Posts: 70
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2008, 04:29 AM NHFT »

But assessors could claim the RV is a permanent structure (not mobile) and thus tax it and require the land under it to be taxed at full developed value.

Yep...I even heard of a case where there the owner periodically moved the 'mobile structure' around to other parts of the property (which I believe had been subdivided for this purpose) so it could not be considered a permanent structure.  It's all quite ridiculous really. 

 
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • Revolutionary
  • ******
  • Karma: 1040
  • Posts: 2269
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2008, 08:46 AM NHFT »

NH (heck New England) is a little odder. We've had whole municipalities looking to secede from a State (Killington from Vermont), other municipalities looking to secede from a county (Sunapee from Sullivan), and parts of a municipality from the municipality (Weirs Beach from Laconia). All these just in the last few years.

The town PorcFest was held in (Gilford) and mine (Belmont) both long ago seceded from Gilmanton. And each of these three municipalities have sub-communities within them.
Logged

Russell Kanning

  • Administrator
  • Enemy of the State
  • *****
  • Karma: 2487
  • Posts: 22815
  • The Nonviolent Revolution starts here
    • russellkanning.com blog
Re: 98 acres $165K...in Keene, is this for real?
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2008, 08:47 AM NHFT »

no address yet? ... we might bike up that road soon
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up