Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

jeffk · 12-23-2017, 08:45 AM

I grew up in upstate New York over 50 years ago. There were towns and areas in those towns that were more "desirable" properties. The lots and houses were large and so were the valuations and associated property taxes. I'm sure that many that owned a good sized piece of land and maybe a small home in the expensive areas, bought cheap decades ago, sold off to a doctor or lawyer that cleared the land and built a big fancy house. The people that sold got out from under higher property tax, got a nice payment for the property, and built/bought a nice house in a more affordable area.

You could argue that these folks were "kicked out" of their property by rising values and associated taxes. You could also say they got a nice compensation that funded a comfortable retirement.

The same thing happens in urban renewal where run down buildings are replaced by fancy, and expensive, condos. The previous residents in the area have NO HOPE of affording one of the condos.

People have no "right" to occupy a piece of land. They can buy one and there are costs associated with it's upkeep, including taxes. If you can't afford the costs, you can't keep the property. In one form or another, that's been true for thousands of years.

Notice that my example includes no "lake" because the presence of the lake here is almost coincidental. Yes, being on the lake accelerates the increase of valuation but the process itself happens continually all over the world.

I sold my lake house to get out of the costs that would have been difficult to fund. In return, I have a VERY comfortable retirement. I have chosen to be happy in my circumstances. I valet my boat and enjoy the lake. I could be miserable because I was "forced" out of my lake house that I was entitled to but I just don't see it that way.

12-23-2017, 08:45 AM	#120
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,137 Thanks: 201 Thanked 423 Times in 241 Posts	Nothing new I grew up in upstate New York over 50 years ago. There were towns and areas in those towns that were more "desirable" properties. The lots and houses were large and so were the valuations and associated property taxes. I'm sure that many that owned a good sized piece of land and maybe a small home in the expensive areas, bought cheap decades ago, sold off to a doctor or lawyer that cleared the land and built a big fancy house. The people that sold got out from under higher property tax, got a nice payment for the property, and built/bought a nice house in a more affordable area. You could argue that these folks were "kicked out" of their property by rising values and associated taxes. You could also say they got a nice compensation that funded a comfortable retirement. The same thing happens in urban renewal where run down buildings are replaced by fancy, and expensive, condos. The previous residents in the area have NO HOPE of affording one of the condos. People have no "right" to occupy a piece of land. They can buy one and there are costs associated with it's upkeep, including taxes. If you can't afford the costs, you can't keep the property. In one form or another, that's been true for thousands of years. Notice that my example includes no "lake" because the presence of the lake here is almost coincidental. Yes, being on the lake accelerates the increase of valuation but the process itself happens continually all over the world. I sold my lake house to get out of the costs that would have been difficult to fund. In return, I have a VERY comfortable retirement. I have chosen to be happy in my circumstances. I valet my boat and enjoy the lake. I could be miserable because I was "forced" out of my lake house that I was entitled to but I just don't see it that way.