In New Hampshire, state officials are coming up with new bases to tax (if anyone says that the public sector is not innovative, think about the prolific R&D that goes into devising new taxes.) The city claims that the "view factor" has always been a part of property tax assessment, but that since "views have become so valuable in some towns...assessors are giving them a separate line on appraisal records." Hat tip to Boortz.

I think my dissertation discussed the concept of hedonic pricing, so the fact that a nice view increases a home's value and thus its property tax isn't alarming. The uproar seems to be that homeowners now see where their taxes are going.

Random thoughts--
1) It's refreshing to see taxpayers in an uproar when they finally realize the amount of taxes they pay. Would Senators and others be criticizing gas prices and companies if people knew how much of their $3 per gallon is tax?

2) "State officials say there is no such thing as a 'view tax' - it is a 'view factor.'" I was on a radio program some months back with state representatives discussing Social Security reform, and one of them made the suggestion of taking a portion of people's paychecks and putting it into a personal account. He kept stressing "don't call it a tax." If I keep calling myself tall it doesn't change the fact that I'm 5'6". A rose by any other name...

3) I had the thought reading through the column, but the ending summed it up:
Retired engineer John Chandler objected when a revaluation doubled the value of his property in Hill because of its view of the White Mountains in the distance. Chandler noted that he does not own the view and cannot control it, and said it is increasingly obscured by air pollution.
Besides, he is legally blind.

4) According to public finance, when is a tax most efficient? When it is directly tied to consumption of a public good or service. What government service is being provided that homeowners are consuming, and that the view tax would conceivably fund?