|
Home > Archive > Architecture > December 2005 > Burn your eyeballs out with a white hot poker, right now!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Burn your eyeballs out with a white hot poker, right now!
|
|
|
|
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:xThnf.2916$nm.981@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> And get it over with.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9e5c9
This is just plain sick.
| |
| Harvey Van Sickle 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
| On 12 Dec 2005, Kris Krieger wrote
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:xThnf.2916$nm.981@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
> This is just plain sick.
I agree, but isn't it an inevitable result of basing assessment
value on market value?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Architectural and topographical historian
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972AB14066EAwhhvans@62.253.170.163...
> On 12 Dec 2005, Kris Krieger wrote
>
>
> I agree, but isn't it an inevitable result of basing assessment
> value on market value?
There is no "market value" until the home is sold. Until that point, it's
speculation as to what the market value might be. Besides, it's stupid.
Property taxes are the most egregious of all taxes. If you don't pay them,
your land gets taken from you. You clearly don't own the land...only rent
it for what the government get out of you.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 2:21 pm |
| Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:Xns972AB14066EAwhhvans@62.253.170.163:
> On 12 Dec 2005, Kris Krieger wrote
>
>
> I agree, but isn't it an inevitable result of basing assessment
> value on market value?
>
Hey, stop the presses...! :p It's not like that's news. That doesn't
change the fact that there is something sick about it.
"Since you can see the tip of a pond from this place, you *MUST* now cough
up $X-thousand a year. We don't care if you bought this 30 years ago and
retired on it, *we want money* and you'll either give it to us, or we'll
boot your XXX outta here and tough shit if you can't afford to live
anywhere else, for all we care you can go live in a box under the freeway
because if you ain't rich, you're dogshit."
Increasingly, that's what it all comes down to. If you ain't rich, you're
dogshit.
The difference between that, and living in the days of Viking raids, is
that they don't kill you outright any more - they let you shrivel slowly
and painfully over a prolonged period of time.
It'll just get worse as more and more of the planet is inundated by human
bodies. Most of the world will be not so much a megalopolis but a mega-
slum-polis. But not for long. Things like Ebola and Avian flu are just
harbinbgers of the inevitable - I say "inevitable" because of human nature.
| |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns972AB14066EAwhhvans@62.253.170.163...
> On 12 Dec 2005, Kris Krieger wrote
>
>
> I agree, but isn't it an inevitable result of basing assessment
> value on market value?
Make that *assumed* market value.
Value cannot be determined until AFTER it is sold.
But that won't stop them from looking at your neighbors house, even if he
lives 3 miles away, and assigning and arbitrary number to yours.
| |
|
|
"3D Peruna" <w!h#a$r%o^l&d@w!e#i$r%d&n*e(s)s.com> wrote in message
news:ovinf.9227$Eu3.5676@fe07.lga...
>
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns972AB14066EAwhhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
> There is no "market value" until the home is sold. Until that point, it's
> speculation as to what the market value might be.
Dang, I'm slow on the draw again.
Your right Paul.
Remember a question I posted about a year ago, about whether one could be
taxed beyond their means?
That question was answered by a local guy that reminded me that theres a 3%
cap on property tax increases per year around here.
BUT.
The property appraiser can come in and raise the appraised value of your
home right on the spot.
Which they are doing all the time, our house has increased in assumed value
3 times in 3 years.
BUT.
Its been on the market for 6 weeks now and hasn't sold, even though we've
dropped the price.
Until it is proven otherwise I am under the opinion that yes, one can be
taxed beyond their means.
Whats next, you have a particular species of tree in your yard so your tax
will increase?
How about the floor coverings?
Or the pattern on your driveway?
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> "Since you can see the tip of a pond from this place, you *MUST* now cough
> up $X-thousand a year.
What about *potential* view?
Suppose the guy in the article planted swift growing trees along the rear of
his property line, blocking this so called *value enhancing* view, would he
still have to pay an increase in tax?
Yes, because they'd say he has created an attractive nuisance in the
community and the trees must go.
Suppose he painted all the rear windows black? Or removed them?
While they're in the mode of *assuming* what stuff is worth, what if they
*assumed* that the owner might build a 2nd floor addition in the future so
they make him pay for that potentiality?
When you talk about theft, the sky is the limit.
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:R0jnf.2920$3Z.395@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns972AB14066EAwhhvans@62.253.170.163...
>
> Make that *assumed* market value.
> Value cannot be determined until AFTER it is sold.
> But that won't stop them from looking at your neighbors house, even if he
> lives 3 miles away, and assigning and arbitrary number to yours.
>
I moved a window when I remodeled my kitchen so I could see the Ocean. I
wondered why the tax bill jumped so much? Additional appraisal was way over
cost of new kitchen. Damn
eds
| |
| Deborah 2005-12-12, 3:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:b6jnf.2925$3Z.69@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> "3D Peruna" <w!h#a$r%o^l&d@w!e#i$r%d&n*e(s)s.com> wrote in
> message news:ovinf.9227$Eu3.5676@fe07.lga...
<snip>
[color=darkred]
> Whats next, you have a particular species of tree in your yard
> so your tax will increase?
> How about the floor coverings?
> Or the pattern on your driveway?
>
>
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000139.shtml
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1190.html
| |
| Pierre Levesque, AIA 2005-12-12, 3:21 pm |
| That's pretty freaky. But look at what we're going through upstate in the
Catskills...
http://tinyurl.com/ae9ok
I own one of the parcels over twenty acres (100 acres) whose taxes were
disciminately raised by the town's assessor... Out of nowhere our tax bill
doubled (that would be a 200% increase!)...
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:xThnf.2916$nm.981@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> And get it over with.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9e5c9
>
>
| |
| 3D Peruna 2005-12-12, 6:21 pm |
|
"Pierre Levesque, AIA" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:LHjnf.1804$Bj4.1681@trndny01...
>
> That's pretty freaky. But look at what we're going through upstate in the
> Catskills...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ae9ok
>
> I own one of the parcels over twenty acres (100 acres) whose taxes were
> disciminately raised by the town's assessor... Out of nowhere our tax bill
> doubled (that would be a 200% increase!)...
This is why people should own guns.
I think that the revolt will start over property taxes and there will be
deaths because of it. Some guy is going to get fed up and not pay. They'll
come after him and he'll shoot some of 'em. And then it will happen
again...and again... Then you'll see people band together to protect each
others property. It will not be pretty. But there won't be property taxes
after its all over.
| |
|
| > > disciminately raised by the town's assessor... Out of nowhere our tax
bill
That would be a 100% increase.
[color=darkred]
> Some guy is going to get fed up and not pay
It happens and looks like "suicide by SWAT". He didn't want to pay his fair
share. He was a lone crazy.
> And then it will happen again...and again...
That's the part that hasn't happened yet.
> Then you'll see people band together to protect each others property
Can't do it now. "illegal militia movements want to overthrow government."
You can't even train for when they come to shoot you.
> But there won't be property taxes after its all over.
For a little while.
| |
|
| "Pierre Levesque, AIA"> wrote
> That's pretty freaky. But look at what we're going through upstate in the
> Catskills...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ae9ok
>
> I own one of the parcels over twenty acres (100 acres) whose taxes were
> disciminately raised by the town's assessor... Out of nowhere our tax bill
> doubled (that would be a 200% increase!)...
From that article:
In an Aug. 4 letter to the Freeman, town Supervisor Robert Cross Jr....said
the minimum was raised because those paying on the lower end of the scale
had been "enjoying" the benefits of valuations that haven't changed in 30
years.
This Cross fella should just *vanish* in the middle of the night, without a
trace.
'cept for a nice little note left behind on his nightstand...... "sic temper
tyrannis"
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> This is why people should own guns.
>
> I think that the revolt will start over property taxes and there will be
> deaths because of it. Some guy is going to get fed up and not pay.
> They'll come after him and he'll shoot some of 'em. And then it will
> happen again...and again... Then you'll see people band together to
> protect each others property. It will not be pretty. But there won't be
> property taxes after its all over.
Or, people will witness the wholesale murder of that one person and pull up
stakes or burrow ever deeper into the couch each night.
Locally, after a long period of insane behavior in the school board a guy
walked into the gargantuan building and right into the administrators office
and cashed his check with a 9mm. That guy then got killed in the parking lot
by the thugs. That was about 15 years ago and logically you'd think the
school board would have gotten a grip. Not so. It has gotten 1000 fold worse
and a message was told to all. We, the school board, will do any and all
that we want and you the citizenry can't do a thing about it. And thats
exactly whats been going on.
Arbitrarily raising property taxes because of assumed value is one thing,
but more than 1/2 the property tax here goes toward the school system, of
which a large percentage of the payors receive nothing in return except for
that communist slogan, 'An educated society is a better society'. But even
that fails, for all the regular reasons......
| |
|
| "gruhn"> wrote
>
> Can't do it now. "illegal militia movements want to overthrow government."
*One* speaking out loud is a looney, *Two* speaking out loud is a
conspiracy.
> You can't even train for when they come to shoot you.
Unless you believe in the *Army of One* idea.
*Train 'em young, train 'em for life*
--gs, 1974
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 7:21 pm |
| Deborah <celiej@yaspamisnotwelcomedhoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns972A8D43A197Aceliejyaspamisnotwel@66.26.32.8:
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:b6jnf.2925$3Z.69@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000139.shtml
>
> http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1190.html
>
>
So can you avoid the tax by building a big ugly 12' concrete wall around
your property? Or keeping junked cars in the back?
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 7:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:5ajnf.2930$3Z.1228@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> What about *potential* view?
> Suppose the guy in the article planted swift growing trees along the
> rear of his property line, blocking this so called *value enhancing*
> view, would he still have to pay an increase in tax?
Or my Q. - what if he put up a huge ugly wall or kept junked cars in the
back.
> Yes, because they'd say he has created an attractive nuisance in the
> community and the trees must go.
> Suppose he painted all the rear windows black? Or removed them?
The whole thing is just....well, a "hole" thing...
>
> While they're in the mode of *assuming* what stuff is worth, what if
> they *assumed* that the owner might build a 2nd floor addition in the
> future so they make him pay for that potentiality?
What if they instead assumed he got a chemistry set and figured out how to
make picric acid...then it'd DEvalue.
>
> When you talk about theft, the sky is the limit.
And the "American Dream" fades into delusion.
When all you get for working hard and trying to live decently is
punishment, you end up with fewer poeple wanting to bother with either.
What will the politicians do when nobody wants to work and there is no
moneyu for anything?
I shouldn't ask that tho'. They'll probably force people to sell one of
everything they have 2 of (kidnsy, eyeball, ear, arm...) and a part of
whatever they've only one of (liver, etc.).
I wouldn't put it past the "paragon of animals"...
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 7:21 pm |
| "eds" <snowed@comcast.net> wrote in
news:QfWdnewx3Zu7WADeRVn-vQ@comcast.com:
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:R0jnf.2920$3Z.395@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> I moved a window when I remodeled my kitchen so I could see the Ocean.
> I wondered why the tax bill jumped so much? Additional appraisal was
> way over cost of new kitchen. Damn
> eds
>
>
>
People have to start figuring out how to build those "secret walls and
doorways" of old. Looks like an ugly wall when the robbers come - but flip
a lever when they've gone, and Voila!, a view.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 7:21 pm |
| "Pierre Levesque, AIA" <pierrelevesqueNOSPAM@connarch.com> wrote in
news:LHjnf.1804$Bj4.1681@trndny01:
> That's pretty freaky. But look at what we're going through upstate in
> the Catskills...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ae9ok
>
> I own one of the parcels over twenty acres (100 acres) whose taxes
> were disciminately raised by the town's assessor... Out of nowhere our
> tax bill doubled (that would be a 200% increase!)...
I thought there was some sort of Fed tax credit for habing a "wildlife
habitat" or some such thing...?
>
>
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:xThnf.2916$nm.981@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> When all you get for working hard and trying to live decently is
> punishment, you end up with fewer poeple wanting to bother with either.
> What will the politicians do when nobody wants to work and there is no
> moneyu for anything?
>
> I shouldn't ask that tho'. They'll probably force people to sell one of
> everything they have 2 of (kidnsy, eyeball, ear, arm...) and a part of
> whatever they've only one of (liver, etc.).
>
> I wouldn't put it past the "paragon of animals"...
What you've described is the model that was held as the pinacle of horror
throughout most of the 20th century and there are many other examples
littered all along the trail of world history. Communism wasn't erased by
Reagan back in the 80's, it just moved across the ocean. Whats that saying,
'If you forget history you are doomed to repeat it.'? Didn't take long for
the memory to fade did it?
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> People have to start figuring out how to build those "secret walls and
> doorways" of old. Looks like an ugly wall when the robbers come - but
> flip
> a lever when they've gone, and Voila!, a view.
Analogy:
The powers that be have placed water restrictions on the citizenry, you can
only water your lawn 2 days a week.
Most people have their sprinklers set to come on late at night or early
morning.
So the city has hired 15 new thugs to patrol the city from 11pm to 6am
issuing tickets to people that are watering on the wrong days.
The ticket costs $250 and the 1st night they wrote 212 tickets. No warnings.
They would do the same thing regarding your secret walls deal.
Now for something new:
The city police now patrols the city at night on foot checking for unlocked
car doors in people's driveways.
If they come across a car with an unlocked door or open window they place a
flyer on the dash that tells the owner that they should keep their car doors
locked as they are contributing to vehicular theft.
Once more: The cops are entering private property without warrants or
probable cause.
Do you see where this is going?
I railed against this in the local paper and all sorts of people jumped all
over me.
They were very thankful that the cops are looking out for their best
interest and people like me are extremists and should move to another
country, like China.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> I thought there was some sort of Fed tax credit for habing a "wildlife
> habitat" or some such thing...?
Highly restrictive with very little benefit, and its variable per region.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 9:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:oDnnf.3639$Dd2.2871@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Analogy:
> The powers that be have placed water restrictions on the citizenry,
> you can only water your lawn 2 days a week.
> Most people have their sprinklers set to come on late at night or
> early morning.
> So the city has hired 15 new thugs to patrol the city from 11pm to 6am
> issuing tickets to people that are watering on the wrong days.
> The ticket costs $250 and the 1st night they wrote 212 tickets. No
> warnings.
Hang on, it will seem like I'm in opposition at first but bear with me for
a bit.
In some areas, I can see the water thing because the land is actually
sinking due to aquifer depletion. In new Mexico, areas of forest are dying
because the stupid gold courses are using so much water that they're
depriving everything else. So that's not really a good example. People
waste way too much water and electricity. In some areas of Colorado, it's
so dry that raising someone's water bill just doesn't mean anything - even
if they want to pay, the question is whether they have the right to water
their lawn if their neighbors can't bathe their baby. It's a question of
limited resources.
I supposed people could argue that a "vue" is the same.
In the end, if I think about it all, it just makes me even more cynicalk
and misanthropic than I am normally and leaves me wondering whether the
ancients who prophesied Armageddon were actually projecting the inevetible
fruits of human nature.
> They would do the same thing regarding your secret walls deal.
>
> Now for something new:
> The city police now patrols the city at night on foot checking for
> unlocked car doors in people's driveways.
> If they come across a car with an unlocked door or open window they
> place a flyer on the dash that tells the owner that they should keep
> their car doors locked as they are contributing to vehicular theft.
> Once more: The cops are entering private property without warrants or
> probable cause.
Are they entering the car? How are they checking? If they're just looking
at the latches, they aren't entering anything. And again, it's not that
simple, because one can argue that for every numbnut who gets a car stolen
because they "don't feel" like locking it, insurance rates go up for every
one else. OTOH, if the car gets stolen and you don't have insurance, fine.
> Do you see where this is going?
> I railed against this in the local paper and all sorts of people
> jumped all over me.
> They were very thankful that the cops are looking out for their best
> interest and people like me are extremists and should move to another
> country, like China.
I think that people should have the right to have their property off-limits
to, for example, the inspections by the police. But if the unlocked car
gets stolon, kiss any insurance settlement good-bye, IMO. OTOH, if the
police are out there walking around all the time poking into people's
stuff, why would crime be high...?
((Personally, I like the "Pimp my Ride SOuth African Style" - flamethrowers
on the side. Carjackings with murder got so bad, from what I heard a while
back, that they made it legal to do stuff like mount flamethrowers on the
car to run off potential hijackers - if they got burned, it was too damn
bad - no lawsuits, no insurance, just too damn bad. If there were
consequences for actions, people might learn to behave better.))
Water, like I said, is dicy because *clean/potable* water is limited. IMO,
cities ought to have a parallel greywater system people can use (or make it
easy for people to set up greywater systems) for watering yards and the
like. Why should everyone have to subsidize a few particularly wasteful
people?
IOW, the point is that for a great many things, there *are* solutions that
minimize intrusion, but it takes a bit of creativity, a bit of work to
establish them, and a bit of cooperation among people. The problem is that
the vast majority of people *always* turn first and immediately to some
sort of intrusive method of control, which is at best always jsut a knee-
jerk band-aid afterthought, rather then looking for an actual solution to
the situation.
The problem with your examples, tho', is that you're comparing tangible
items (property) with something that is intangible - what you can see from
your window. Taxing a view is sort of like taxing poeple who live in less
polluted areas, like a clean-air tax. Not that it wouldn't surprise me if
such a thing was instituted - with all sorts of exemptions of course for
the power elite (not the same as rich, either - not all well-off people
have power).
After a point, and not a very distant point, either, "your fair share"
becomes "their unfair wastefulness". Like the infamous school taxes - I
wouldn't mind so much if schools actually provided kids with an education.
But now, it's not at all about education - people say "think of your kids!"
when what they *mean* is "think of my pension!"
Increasingly, it seems to me, all sorts of touchyfeelie-warmfuzzy phrases
like that are used to institutionalize the worst sorts of corruption and
power-mongering.
Not that I'm making any specific point; it's all tied together but I'm too
disgusted with it all to tie it all together.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-12, 9:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:qEnnf.3640$Dd2.2004@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Highly restrictive with very little benefit, and its variable per
> region.
>
>
>
OK, maybe this one.
Donate it to The Nature Conservancy with the stipulation that, in exchange
for giving them thie item of value (land), you will be permitted to live to
it in perpetuity as a sort of ranger or something, so they can never kick
you off. That way, you also get the tax break. I wonder whether that
would be possible.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> "Don"> wrote
>
> OK, maybe this one.
>
> Donate it to The Nature Conservancy with the stipulation that, in exchange
> for giving them thie item of value (land), you will be permitted to live
> to
> it in perpetuity as a sort of ranger or something, so they can never kick
> you off. That way, you also get the tax break. I wonder whether that
> would be possible.
A friend told me recently he put 8 cows on his7.5 acres to get a tax break
for agricultural reasons.
I forgot to ask what the trade-offs are.
You aren't allowed to have livestock on your property where I live.
(the friend lives on the other side of the county)
Some of the tracts of acreage we've been previewing online have certain
forestry and/or agricultural considerations that result in some sort of tax
breaks.
I am very wary of anything the gov't is involved with.
I can see them seizing your land for forestry observations or an ecological
thing if you partially surrender it to them.
| |
| Pierre Levesque, AIA 2005-12-13, 1:21 pm |
| Nah, there are options of things to do in this area and they all have to do
with watershed.
I could designate a percentage of my property (minimum 40 acres) to a Forest
Management Plan with the Department of Environmental Conservation. I'd need
to have a FMP done by a sanctioned forester whereas at least once in a 5
year period I 'd need to harvest some lumber including some thinning etc.
That could provide about a 20% tax relief for the portion under the plan
plus $$$ for the harvested lumber. I wouldn't be able to develop anything
on that 40 acres during that period but that's OK because it's undevelopable
due to the high elevation (+/-2500' and difficult accessibility of the top
of my property). The problem with it is that the thinning makes the
property look like crap and I have about 5 miles of trails I built for
hiking up there.
Another option is to grant NYC an easement on the property. The property is
in the NYC watershed and by grating the easement, the property essentially
becomes "forever wild" like the State Forest preserve that surrounds my
property. That would provide up to an 85% tax relief. The exchange for
that "good sounding" agreement is that only one residence could be built on
the property for the life of the easement. That is problematic because
about 40-50 of my 100 acres that are very suitable for building. Say, in 20
years, that I want to/need to retire and sell the property to a developer
and who desires to develop mountain residences. The current zoning is R5,
with 5 acre minimum lots. That's 8 potential lots that couldn't be sold for
that purpose if I went with the NYC Watershed easement.
Rather, I did some selected logging in 1995 on my own and around my trails.
Prepared a contract that protected the trails and imposed penalties if the
logger damaged the hiking trails, stone walls etc. I worked with the logger
to design and locate the logging trails so as to criss-cross the hiking
trails and minimize the recreational impact. I sold 70K board feet (about
100 trees) of Black Cherry, White Ash, and Hard Maple for a net profit of
about $30,000.00.
Now, I paid peanuts for this property in 1992 ($850/acre) and the current
market for large acreage in the area sells for $8-10K/acre. There is very
little private land left in the Catskill High Peaks region and I could only
imagine the value of 100 acres that can be sub-divided vs one single lot in
25 years...
That said, let it be clear and known that my intent is and always will be to
only have one estate residence on the property (fingers crossed) but that
requires continued good fortune and health but it's nice to have the
insurance policy in the present and future.
"Kris Krieger" <pteroDELETE_THISchromics@earthlinkDELETE.net> wrote in
message news:6_onf.2840$QQ1.2518@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:qEnnf.3640$Dd2.2004@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
> OK, maybe this one.
>
> Donate it to The Nature Conservancy with the stipulation that, in exchange
> for giving them thie item of value (land), you will be permitted to live
> to
> it in perpetuity as a sort of ranger or something, so they can never kick
> you off. That way, you also get the tax break. I wonder whether that
> would be possible.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-15, 9:22 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:Nxpnf.3150$3Z.641@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> A friend told me recently he put 8 cows on his7.5 acres to get a tax
> break for agricultural reasons.
> I forgot to ask what the trade-offs are.
> You aren't allowed to have livestock on your property where I live.
> (the friend lives on the other side of the county)
>
> Some of the tracts of acreage we've been previewing online have
> certain forestry and/or agricultural considerations that result in
> some sort of tax breaks.
> I am very wary of anything the gov't is involved with.
> I can see them seizing your land for forestry observations or an
> ecological thing if you partially surrender it to them.
The problem is that there's no way around having some sort of gov.t
involvement. So the question isn't how to eliminate it (since you can't) -
the question is how to make it work for you rather than against you...
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <pteroDELETE_THISchromics@earthlinkDELETE.net> wrote in
message news:leoof.1587$mj1.676@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:Nxpnf.3150$3Z.641@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>
> The problem is that there's no way around having some sort of gov.t
> involvement.
Probably true.
So the question isn't how to eliminate it (since you can't) -
> the question is how to make it work for you rather than against you...
I'm not interested in having anything to do with it.
My experience has shown the more you are involved with gov't the more likely
you are to be burned by it.
A low profile and a non-identity is what I'm going for.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-12-16, 7:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:6fGof.6271$nm.263@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <pteroDELETE_THISchromics@earthlinkDELETE.net> wrote in
> message news:leoof.1587$mj1.676@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[ ... ][color=darkred]
>
> Probably true.
>
> So the question isn't how to eliminate it (since you can't) -
>
> I'm not interested in having anything to do with it.
> My experience has shown the more you are involved with gov't the more
> likely you are to be burned by it.
> A low profile and a non-identity is what I'm going for.
Which also makes sense. The problem with "standing out from the crowd" is
that it makes you an easy target...
|
|
|
|
|