The residential exemption would lower the tax burden of West Tisbury town residents, but could result in higher bills for people who own second homes or rental properties in the town.
West Tisbury is considering changes to town tax policy to lower payments for property owners who have their primary residence in the town.
Tisbury, Oak Bluffs and Nantucket currently operate with a “residential exemption,” said town principal assessor MacGregor Anderson at a joint meeting of the select board and board of assessors on March 27.
The exemption, Mr. Anderson said, would lower the tax burden of West Tisbury town residents, but could result in higher bills for those who own second homes or rental properties in the town.
“It will create some division, it’s a very political thing,” said Mr. Anderson.
Adopting a residential exemption excludes a portion of the taxation for residents and spreads it across other non-exempt properties.
Board of Assessors chair Michael Colaneri spoke in favor of enacting the exemption at that meeting, saying that it has had a positive impact for other communities where it has been put in place.
“In my estimation, it is kind of overdue,” he said.
Though the select board would not vote on the exemption until the tax rate hearing this November, Mr. Anderson said administrative preparations to make that vote possible would have to begin well ahead of time.
The select board did not vote on the issue on Wednesday, instead asking the assessors to return with a presentation on the exemption’s financial impact at a future meeting.
In other business, the select board voted to approve three conservation restrictions held by the Trustees of Reservations near Big Homers Pond, comprising 35.3 acres of habitat. The restrictions were imposed by the state Department of Fisheries and Wildlife as a precondition for a subdivision of nearby property.
Comments
Makes sense. Lower the tax
tom BostonMakes sense. Lower the tax bill for the very folks who use most of the services and up the bill for those who use very few of he services. Then vilify the 2nd homeowners at every turn.
This is a bad idea. Well run
Elly WTThis is a bad idea. Well run summer communities treat all homeowners the same. They foster a spirit of inclusiveness and togetherness. The tax rates on MV are already among the lowest in the state (and the country). Tisbury has already implemented a split and that town has consistently shown to have a poor performing government with ever increasing taxes. We don’t need WT to follow.
Honestly, having the tax
Tisbury ResidentHonestly, having the tax reduction for full-time residents is one of the reasons my family is able to afford our mortgage and continue living here. I would have liked to buy in another town with lower rates, but the prices/down payments were too high, so our only option was Tisbury (or OB, but nothing that fit our needs was for sale at the time). I fully agree that Tisbury struggles with management and leadership, and I also do not really understand the economics/tax/funding aspects - perhaps there is a better way to help residents and create revenue for the town. But, without the residential kick-back, I would have a much higher tax burden and likely would struggle even more to pay my mortgage as taxes and insurance continue to rise.
As a year-round West Tisbury
Peter WTAs a year-round West Tisbury resident who stands to gain from a residential exemption, I oppose this idea. First, I have experienced the divisiveness and acrimony the residential exemption has engendered in other towns. Second, it lowers the taxes for those who consume the most services and raises the taxes for those who don't use the public schools and generally use less of the public safety departments and other services. I am happy to pay the taxes I do for the services West Tisbury provides. Please do not do this.
“It will create some division
Ben West Tisbury“It will create some division, it’s a very political thing,” said Mr. Anderson.
An understatement. Please put a stop to this kind of thinking and tax planning. Most second homeowners have no vote nor say in how they're taxed. Island residents should be grateful their towns, schools, and roads are subsidized by second homeowners. Instead, it's becoming an "us versus them" reflex. West Tisbury's Personal Property Tax requires second homeowners to tally and report every table, lamp, bed, candlestick, etc. to which the town assesses a tax every year! It's discriminatory and un-American.
Yes I agree. About time to
CYes I agree. About time to consider a tax break for tax payers who live, work and support the community year round in which they live. Especially those who have lived here most of their lives can no longer afford the higher cost of living and ever increasing taxes; as well as suffer the consequences of the lack of services year round for medical appointments, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, lack of supplies and also pay the cost for the increase of town services for seasonal workers who live in year round affordable housing, subsidized by their own tax dollars; when they can no longer afford their own. TIme for the all-island select men/women to consider a one year ban on all new and expanding development and housing and address the issues that this small Island can no longer sustain. At least give those who need it, a break. Others who can afford a second home can surely afford to pay their fair share or a bit more. I agree. Long over-due.
Yes I agree. About time to
C. Marc WTYes I agree. About time to consider a tax break for tax payers who live, work and support the community year round in which they live. Especially those who have lived here most of their lives can no longer afford the higher cost of living and ever increasing taxes; as well as suffer the consequences of the lack of services year round for medical appointments, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, lack of supplies and also pay the cost for the increase of town services for seasonal workers who live in year round affordable housing, subsidized by their own tax dollars; when they can no longer afford their own. Time for the all-island select men/women to consider an island-wide one year ban on all new and expanding development and housing and address the issues that this small Island can no longer sustain. At least give those who need it, a break. Others who can afford a second home can surely afford to pay their fair share or a bit more. I agree. Long over-due.
C.Marc, assuming all second
Jeff Carson DOWNINGTOWN, PAC.Marc, assuming all second home owners on Martha's Vineyard can afford to pay more in taxes is incorrect. What is true is some second home owners are wealthy enough to carry an increased tax burden just as there are full time island residents who can afford a similar tax burden. It is also true that there are second home owners who, like some islanders, struggle to cover the costs of home ownership on Martha's Vineyard. While it is true year round residents provide year round support for the island community seasonal residents have been paying their fair share and then some for years as they drive fewer miles on island roads, send fewer students to island schools, and use fewer town services. A fairer approach would be to re-apportion real estate taxes based on owner income rather than residency status.
I agree with this and it’s
Tom Engley West Tisbury.I agree with this and it’s about time I remember my father winter in New Hampshire 5 months and 28d days then back home for 6 months and 3 day so he didn’t have to pay personal property taxes. I cannot see this plan being a bad idea. I support this.
Residents voting for non
Chappy Guy ChappyResidents voting for non-residents to pay more… why not? This is entirely consistent with the “fair share doctrine” that anyone who has something I don’t must not be paying their fair share, whatever that is. If the assessors are sharp, they will, upon adoption of such a tax regime, promptly lower the assessed values of second homes to an extent that reflects the greater tax burden placed on these assets, thus negating the impact of the tax exemption on the allocation of the tax levy. Discriminating against non-residents in this way is surely divisive. If the (real) goal is simply to shift the tax burden to those with more expensive homes, the simply give EVERYONE the same nominal tax exemption. Any such exemption would accord the greatest benefit to the homes of lowest value and would result in the tax burden shifting to more valuable properties. This way everyone gets to proportionately stick it to those with more expensive homes (fair share doctrine) but at least do so in a way that doesn’t discriminate based on residency and also in a way that assessors would not be able to simply undo through proper valuation.
I oppose this suggestion. As
Beatrice Phear wtI oppose this suggestion. As a full-time West Tisbury resident I am grateful that my seasonal neighbors pay such a large portion of our bills, while using few of our services, particularly the expensive education we offer. I think it will foster resentment, and I think it is unfair.
Dear Mr. Colaneri. This is
30 year WT second home owner Cambridge and West TisburyDear Mr. Colaneri. This is classic "taxation without representation". Property owners who don't live full time in WT are not allowed to vote at Town Meeting, leaving the decision to reduce local takes solely to town residents who would benefit from this scheme. Please consider how much the property taxes of summer residents support the town's budget and how much they contribute to both the year round and seasonal economy and life of the town. Some of us "summer people" still feel the sting of rejection aimed at us during the pandemic by those who were willing to collect our taxes but would have preferred we just stay away from the island. Please think twice before pushing a divisive, short-sighted scheme that treats seasonal residents as money spigots undeserving of a say in their own and the town's financial affairs.
Can I ask you a direct
Seeking Clarity MVCan I ask you a direct question and get a direct response? Cambridge has a 30% residential exemption and has for years. Works out to $3000 per taxpayer per year.
Do you own your home in Cambridge and do you claim the same residential exemption there that is being considered at a much lower level here?
I look forward to your response. Same goes for the Boston commenter earlier.
Of course do it....us year
mark acker wtOf course do it....us year round residents work hard to keep the Island nice for our summer guest. We deserve it. If you can afford a second home on the Vineyard, you can afford slightly higher taxes.
This is unconstitutional and
George O. West TisburyThis is unconstitutional and un-American. Of course the residents are declaring a discriminatory tax structure on the nonresidents…makes all the sense in the world to pit neighbor against neighbor. We already have preferred SSA status and the island card. This very concept of taxation without representation sparked a revolution once, my hope is that it will again. The island has been on the decline since the 90s. This will accelerate it at a precipitous rate. Communism doesn’t work, folks. It fails time and time again. Nonresidents are already subsidizing residents by paying for services they do not use. If you don’t like the cost of living, move elsewhere.
“All pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.”
All this will do is spark a windfall of declarations of residency and maybe several law suits.
Add new comment