ORFORD, N.H. – The one-room cabin David Bischoff built in a cow pasture three years ago has no electricity, no running water, no phone service and no driveway.

What it does have is a wide-open view of the surrounding hills – a view valued at $140,000, according to the latest townwide property revaluation.

The so-called “view tax” increased the value of his property sevenfold, from $22,900 to $162,900, a figure he believes is far more than its actual value. He expects a sharp jump in his $500 annual property taxes as well.

“I’d be happy if they assessed me $50,000 for the view,” said Bischoff, chairman of the Board of Selectmen.

He and Selectman Paul Carreiro voted last month to reject the townwide assessment by Avitar Associates of New England until the state comes up with clear, objective standards for valuing views. Their vote put Orford at the forefront of a growing protest movement.

State officials say there is no such thing as a “view tax” and that tax assessments have always reflected factors that enhance market value – including the indisputable value of having a beautiful view or waterfront.

State Agriculture Commissioner Steve Taylor attributes the controversy to an influx of second-home buyers and retirees willing to pay top dollar for beautiful views in once-sleepy rural towns like Orford, population 1,040.

“There are too many dollars chasing too few views and they’re running the values way up,” Taylor said.

Gary Roberge, president of Avitar, agrees.

“There’s been a huge change in property values in this area,” he said.

Roberge admits there’s a subjective element to assessments, and said that’s why there is an abatement process. But the revaluation was sound overall, he said.

“I’m not suggesting that I’m God or anything, but if you look at everything in Orford, it’s consistent,” he said.

Carreiro argues the state’s rural character is at stake, because high “view taxes” will force farmers to sell to developers and price rural residents out of homes their families have lived in for generations. Sprawling development also will hurt tourism, he says.

Orford, which overlooks the Connecticut River and has views of Vermont and the White Mountains, has several farms and family timber-growing operations.

“We’re trying to talk about preserving open space in this state,” Carreiro told the state Board of Tax and Land Appeals last week. “This is going to destroy the fabric of our communities – people on fixed incomes, the elderly, young families.”

The board is expected to rule soon on the legality of Orford’s action.

Guy Petell, director of property appraisals for the state, sympathizes with homeowners stung by the dark side of the rapidly appreciating real estate market. But it’s apparent from real estate ads and sales that properties with views fetch a premium, and it would be unfair to homeowners without views if assessors ignored that, Petell said.

While 129 Orford property owners were assessed for views, another 500 were not – and most of them want the town to use the new assessments, according to Selectwoman Ann Green, who abstained from the vote to reject Avitar’s revaluation.

Taylor says the underlying problem is the “perversity” of New Hampshire’s heavy reliance on property taxes. The state has no general income or sales tax, and the resultant high property taxes are especially burdensome to homeowners who are land-rich but income-poor.

Lorrie Beaumont, former president of the Boston chapter of the American Society of Appraisers, says there are no standards for valuing views, but appraisers and assessors always note and photograph features that add to a property’s value – or subtract from it, such as a busy street.

“It works both ways,” she said. “It’s what the market will bear and what some buyer comes in and decides they’re going to pay for it, and it’s all subjective and it’s all impulse-driven.”

The lack of standards helped draw a crowd of farmers and rural homeowners to a recent Statehouse hearing on assessing views.

John Lynch, a farmer from Hill, said the “view tax” threatens the survival of family farms. While farmers get a tax break on agricultural land, they don’t get one for the farmhouse.

“There’s not a farm in the state that doesn’t have some type of view,” Lynch said. “The assessors say, ‘We’re not assessing farmland. We’re assessing the farmhouse.’ On a family farm, it’s all one unit and you’re jeopardizing the farm itself.”

John Chandler, a retired engineer and former state legislator who also lives in Hill, objects to paying for a distant view of the White Mountains because he doesn’t own it and can’t control it.

A revaluation last year doubled the base value of his property, although Chandler said the view is obscured by air pollution much of the time.

Besides, he’s legally blind.

“What if the landowner is blind?” he said. “I’m not enjoying that view, at least not as much as Avitar thinks I should be.”