Nutmegger wrote:

Taxes are $2800 / year. All the condos get slammed as second homes. If you're interested, talk to me now before I list it with a broker.

incorrect.....Not if it's your primary residence as in Vermont resident.

Snowcreek is the closet condos to the slopes, when the Spring Fling chair was there you practically had your own lift right to your door. Sweet location, for sure. The landscaping has a patch of gorgeuos day lillies. Like these I photographed last summer.

Wow, nice color SRO!

I know you're a serious photo guy, what are the camera specs on that shot?

Not many "year-rounders" at Snow Creek. Great pic SRO.

ski_resort_observer wrote:

Nutmegger wrote: Taxes are $2800 / year. All the condos get slammed as second homes. If you're interested, talk to me now before I list it with a broker. incorrect.....Not if it's your primary residence as in Vermont resident. Snowcreek is the closet condos to the slopes, when the Spring Fling chair was there you practically had your own lift right to your door. Sweet location, for sure. The landscaping has a patch of gorgeuos day lillies. Like these I photographed last summer.

Nice picture, but not sure what was incorrect about his statement, nutmegger did say it gets slammed as a second home, not primary residence.

random_ski_guy wrote:

ski_resort_observer wrote: Nutmegger wrote: Taxes are $2800 / year. All the condos get slammed as second homes. If you're interested, talk to me now before I list it with a broker. incorrect.....Not if it's your primary residence as in Vermont resident. Snowcreek is the closet condos to the slopes, when the Spring Fling chair was there you practically had your own lift right to your door. Sweet location, for sure. The landscaping has a patch of gorgeuos day lillies. Like these I photographed last summer. Nice picture, but not sure what was incorrect about his statement, nutmegger did say it gets slammed as a second home, not primary residence.

I guess it would depend on what your definition of "all" is. Either way 2nd home owners do take it on the chin.

Yard Sale wrote:

random_ski_guy wrote: ski_resort_observer wrote: Nutmegger wrote: Taxes are $2800 / year. All the condos get slammed as second homes. If you're interested, talk to me now before I list it with a broker. incorrect.....Not if it's your primary residence as in Vermont resident. Snowcreek is the closet condos to the slopes, when the Spring Fling chair was there you practically had your own lift right to your door. Sweet location, for sure. The landscaping has a patch of gorgeuos day lillies. Like these I photographed last summer. Nice picture, but not sure what was incorrect about his statement, nutmegger did say it gets slammed as a second home, not primary residence. I guess it would depend on what your definition of "all" is. Either way 2nd home owners do take it on the chin.

Yup, the "all" in the statement is what I was addressing. Myself and Lostone are Vermont residents living in condos we own as well as several other folks I know and yes, if your a Vermont resident you pay cheaper property taxes. This is Vermont, right? I pay higher out of state prop taxes on my place on the Maine coast and I have no problem with that as I am not a Maine resident.

You can only have one primary residence so I don't understand anyone's logic in expecting to pay permanent resident property taxes or state college in-state tuition just cause you own a home there.

Strat wrote>

Quote:

what are the camera specs on that shot?

I think it's more the subject than anything else here but I shot these with my cheap little old( three years is old in the dig world) point and shoot dig camera. As I have mentioned before the reason I bought this particular camera, for fun, is it has a genuine German made Schneider lens. It's a Kodack Z760 and I think I paid $199 for it. In cameras whether film or digital it's all in the optics and this camera constantly amazes me. If I could only convince Lostone..

ski_resort_observer wrote:

You can only have one primary residence so I don't understand anyone's logic in expecting to pay permanent resident property taxes or state college in-state tuition just cause you own a home there.

Actually, there are plenty of reasons not to make the distinction between a primary residence and a second home for local taxing purposes. Second home owners don't have kids in the local school system (#1 use of local property taxes) and they tend to be less dependent on local government services (libraries, social services, hospitals), so why should they pay more in local taxes? Not all states tax second homes at a higher rate either. For instance, they don't make the distinction here in CT while plenty of people around this part of CT claim Florida, or other parts of the globe for that matter, as their primary residence.

To compare the situation to state college tuition makes little sense to me. State colleges are directly supported by state tax dollars, therefore out of state residents should pay a higher tuition to use those facilities. Out of state students should pay whatever the full cost of college is without the state subsidy. It would be outrageous for VTers to subsidize kids from other states.

Bottom-line, while I can understand why VT would do this, I don't see why out-of-staters should just roll over and accept it as you seem to be arguing, especially if the dichotomy gets out of hand.

Guys -

This is an interesting discussion that should be continued. I think it's probably best placed in this forum rather than the SB forum.

Otherwise, carry on....

Tin, I've been looking at this thread for quite a while, trying to figure a clean way to split this one, as it has 3 different subjects.

Sometimes the baseball bat is the correct tool!

1) Do you know anywhere that allows 2nd home owners to pay a lower rate of property taxes? Wouldn't that make it cheaper for out of staters to buy land then those that live there? Why would anyone want to do that?

B) As for "being slammed" with the higher rate, it is 2.58 for non-residential and 2.33 for Homestead. By my calculations that gives a $25 difference for $100K. Step outside your door and look around. I think you're getting value. It isn't that I only think that now, but that I thought it when I first laid the money down to buy.

And remember, that these rates are figured after the CLA, which is their very strange method of bringing the assessment on your property value closer to where it should be. (ie, my property is valued at $28,000, and that is what the 2.33 is based on. If you can buy one of these units for $28,000... DO IT!)

The base rates, before the CLA, are 1.36 and 1.23, respectively.

III) I asked the question, not the last time that this came up, but the time before... What is the rate of your property tax on your primary residence. My 2003 rate in Dracut, Mass was 1.208. What is your rate? How does your primary assessed value compare to its actual value?

How does the 52.71 CLA compare to your assessed value and the value your 2nd homes are going for?

And SRO:

1) on the daylillies, from someone who is very into gardening and plants, (When walking with her and some of her friends, they stop at every other plant and discuss what it is and where it came from and everything about it. And I think I actually am getting out more than I thought compared to some people! ) comes this info:

Quote:

I was reading the Forum.....whoever it was that took the photo of the lilies at Snow Creek.....Great photo....NOT daylilies though. Those are Asiatic lilies. There are daylilies in the same garden, so they were kinda close.

If you want, I'll get the two of you together and you can fight it out. I'm not getting in the middle of that one! . . . . .

And it isn't the optics I argued about with your camera. It was the actual colors. What I think we ought to do, young man is take the same picture with our own cameras, then print them out and go back to the smae place and see which picture looks more like the object we photographed. (This one I'm getting in the middle of! )

Asiatic lily sounds good to me......although it was during the day sooooooo...

The photo challenge sounds fine but first you have to freeze the local spatial time continuem(?) so when we make the prints we can go back to the time we took the shot as I am assuming the later date the scene will look abit diferent.

winter disc golf anyone?

Lostone....I thought that when the assessed valuation falls below 80% of market value a reassessment is triggered? It seems odd that your unit is assessed so low when compared to similar properties.

I thought that the reason for the CLA was that they are way behind on assessments for the entire state, no?

In any case, I read the numbers off the tax bill. I actually bought the unit for less, but property values have jumped. I think that is why people are seeing their tax bills rise. High property values are only good when you are selling.

Lostone wrote:

I thought that the reason for the CLA was that they are way behind on assessments for the entire state, no? In any case, I read the numbers off the tax bill. I actually bought the unit for less, but property values have jumped. I think that is why people are seeing their tax bills rise. High property values are only good when you are selling.

Property taxes are based on assessed valuation not market value. The town/city part of the prop taxes are based on town/city assessments. For the state part every town/city pays the same rate. It's the town part which can be very diferent from town to town and is determined by what is decided on Town Meeting Day regarding the local school budgets.

In Waitsfield we had a reassessment a couple of years ago. My place basically doubled in assessed valuation. In the news recently was that Montpelier did a reassessment and so many residents requested a hearing on their property as the assessments increased so much the city ended up throwing the whole thing out the window and will try again next year. If you do live in a town where a reassessment is overdue....look out.

The good thing is we don't have to worry about it for another 8 months or so.

Lostone wrote:

1) Do you know anywhere that allows 2nd home owners to pay a lower rate of property taxes? Wouldn't that make it cheaper for out of staters to buy land then those that live there? Why would anyone want to do that? B) As for "being slammed" with the higher rate, it is 2.58 for non-residential and 2.33 for Homestead. By my calculations that gives a $25 difference for $100K. Step outside your door and look around. I think you're getting value. It isn't that I only think that now, but that I thought it when I first laid the money down to buy.

I don't understand the point here. Maybe I'm just not reading closely enough, but I don't recall anyone complaining that their taxes should be LOWER than those using homes as a primary residence. Rather, they are simply saying they shouldn't be HIGHER, especially in light of the fact that second home owners don't require the vast majority of services (expenses) that those taxes are used to pay for in the first place. I really don't understand how that could be opposed, unless you are simply looking to play petty class warfare and "soak the rich" so you (not you specifically, Jim) can enjoy a subsidized lifestyle.