On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:47:55 +0000, Roger Long wrote:

"DSK" wrote
Do you mean that the tax laws have changed so as to reflect property
usage?

Yes, the referendum passed this fall and the legislature is working on
implementation. In a state that usually shows unusual common sense, the
change failed the first time around. It took a massive education effort
to get enough people to realize that the coastline was effectively going
to become part of Massachusetts and New Jersey if it didn't pass.

It used to be that, every time a waterfront business watched a new house
going up on a piece of vacant shoreline, they knew that their property
taxes would shortly follow. This still won't prevent waterfront users
from being priced out of obtaining property but it will help keep them
from being forced off of what they have now.

One nice thing about California is that property taxes are based on what
you bought the property for, plus ~4% per year appreciation. This is how
little old ladies can afford to keep their multi-million dollar homes.

There's no way to stop rising real estate values, but limiting property
tax and therefore fixed costs is how the little guy can stay in the
game, instead of selling out to the super-rich and the corporations.

New England is a wonderful place, but limits its own economic growth by
taxation -- not just high taxes, but stupid taxes. I read
recently that Maine has the highest overall taxes in the US.

Matt O.