Morning Read: Second home-owners want vote in Westport
The Plattsburgh Press-Republican is reporting this morning that five seasonal residents of Westport have petitioned for the right to vote on school budgets and in school elections.
Reporter Alvin Reiner points out that this “might have far-ranging implications.”
Citing “a denial of voting rights,” all submitted verified petitions to the state on behalf of themselves and their belief that between 200 to 400 others are in similar situations within the district.
Initially, they had requested absentee ballots to vote in Westport Central School elections but were denied.
This speaks to an issue faced by a growing number of people in the North Country — snowbirds and others — who spend considerable time in our region, but maintain residency elsewhere.
In many cases, seasonals spend thousands of dollars a year in local property taxes, with no say over spending decisions or budget increases.
So what do you think? Taxing second-homeowners has become something of a cottage industry in the North Country. Is it a fair way to make these folks contribute to their adopted communities? Or is it taxation without representation?
Tags: champlainvalley, land use, politics
Better yet, why not all taxpayers vote on town and county budgets? Why must school districts be the only public service whipping boy?
In some communities if you let all the second home owners vote on all budgets the full time residents would be out-voted.
The bottom line is that relying on property tax to fund such a large share of publicly provided services is inherently unfair. If property tax is reduced the shortfalls must be made up in another way but many of the same people who don’t want to pay high property tax don’t want to have their income tax increased either–even if their property tax goes down. People are greedy. They covet property, they want it as an investment, they improve it, they post it against trespass, they take tax deductions against it, and then they don’t want to pay for it. Don’t be a glutton.
There is a good way to not pay high property tax…sell your vacation home. When you want to go on vacation stay at a hotel.
Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression you need to decide where you live and vote there. If you were to allow people to vote in two or more locations, you would be doubling their voting power and it would be something like the old, sick joke to vote early and often.
It’s time for a change. One vote- on person is great for elected officials. Votes for budget approval based on property ownership (e.g. school budgets) could be updated to allow any affected property owner to vote. Better yet, limit the vote to property owners who contribute taxes rather than allowing non tax paying residents of a taxing district to vote. Too revolutionary an idea?
Pete,
Maybe they just wanted to vote on school budgets and the like. If you are paying taxes in two districts you could probably vote on two separate budgets and not have any “doubling”. When you go to the polls you only get to vote one time they check that.
Mark, “revolutionary” maybe, there was a time after the revolution (I think) when only property owners were allowed to vote but I don’t think we want to go back there. This is an interesting topic, I don’t know what the right answer is.
Also, if we allow this what are we going to do about DC??
Interesting question. What percentage of residents in the school district actually vote now? If it’s like the district I’m in, very few. Allow absentee voting by second home owners and what percentage of the vote will come from outside the district?
I’m told that your can get a tax deduction on your income tax for a second home. I can’t vouch for that never having been affluent enough to own even a camp. If they cut their second home school taxes by voting down the school budgets will they decrease their income tax deduction?
I’m with knucklehead on the idea that if you don’t want to pay property taxes the solution is to not buy property. Stay at a motel/hotel or rent a place for your vacation.
Another question: If the second home is owned on a time share basis should all owners of shares get to vote on the taxes?
James, I don’t think that any such deduction exists. If it does I am going to fire our accountant. In fact you usually can’t even take advantage of things like energy saving deductions for non-primary residences. Insulate or put solar panels on a second home no help from Uncle Sam there, you are on your own.
Paul,
The right answer is that you pay property taxes whether you own property or rent property.
Basically, owning a second home is a luxury. No one needs one. Also, they don’t have a real stake in the community so there is no good reason for them to vote on what is good for the community.
If by chance you should own a home up here but have an apartment in NYC, would you think you had the right to vote in NYC and up here.
I wouldn’t think so even though I would be paying property taxes up here and in NYC.
There very fact anyone is petitioning to vote up here is proof they would vote school budgets down no matter what the budget might be. If they could get away without paying any taxes, they would.
Same attitude exists among some people who do not have any children in school and don’t want to pay to help pay for education.
Gee! I would rather not pay any taxes to help pay for a majority of our stupid wars.
Pete,
I agree with you to some extent. But this statement is rediculous:
“Also, they don’t have a real stake in the community so there is no good reason for them to vote on what is good for the community.”
Many, if not most folks, have many reasons to vote on what is “good for the community”. For example I have many nieces and nephews and many friends children that go to school where I own property that is not my primary residence I would probably be more likely to vote for a higher budget than some of the folks you describe that have no connection to the school.
In fact I would argue, having been raised where this other property is, that I care more about that community than one where I live and work the other parts of the year.
Pete what is your beef? Why do you think that a person needs to only care about one place in the world?
It’s a sweet deal to be the Assessor, Collector, and Spender.
I think school budget elections are designed for low turnout.
Ironically, they are probably non-residents for tax-purposes.
Paul,
I don’t disagree that what happens in other parts of the world, other than where you live year-round or most of the year, are not places you should care about. But caring and voting are two different things.
I believe voting should be limited to where you live and work. Period. As to those who have retired and spend six months here and six months someplace else (even though I can’t imagine why anyone would do that), they have a choice. Vote here or vote there but not in both places.
Pete,
I think I basically agree with you. I never suggested that I should have a vote up north.
But I can see where some folks are coming from.
Is it even constitutional? Where does it end. Some of these wealthy people own homes all over the country, would they have the right to vote in all of those different localities?
I understand the annoyance of paying through the nose on property and not having the right to vote on those local property taxes, but then you have the right to sell the property you can vote in that way. So by voting through selling; prices would fall the revenue generated from the second home market would crash. There is a limit to how much a community can extract and that limit will be seen when the second home market crashes. New buyers would be aware that property taxes are really high here and you cannot vote on them and they will only do one thing in the future and that is go up. Knowing that they would have the option of not buying at all.
There are many places to buy second homes. Of course we should be competing to attract second home buyers not chasing them away.
Paul, you ask what are we going to do about DC. The obvious answer is that the people of DC should have the same voting rights as any other city or state in the union. Why shouldn’t they?
You cant vote in two places at once, but you should be able to register to vote in your choice of one of the places you live, especially if you are paying property taxes there. Remember “taxation without representation”? This same issue pops up at college campuses where students want to vote. They let prisoners be counted as residents but they cant vote. If they could vote then this same argument would come up.
If everyone who lives in an area (even if they don’t own property or pay rent) has the right to vote for school boards and budgets and town boards I don’t see why non-resident tax paying property owners should not have the right to vote in local elections that will determine the taxes they pay and the services they get – otherwise it is “taxation without representation”. Whosever names are on the deeds should be allowed to vote in local elections even if you are not a “resident”.
Non-resident lawnowners should be allowed to vote on local budgets. Only landowners should be allowed to vote on budgets. The power of a landowner’s vote should be based on the assessed value of the property. If you own more valuable property, you get a bigger vote.
Why not? You’ll pay more in taxes.
If you don’t want to go there, then don’t let the non-resident landowners vote. Isn’t there an old expression about having cake and eating it too?
So we’re advocating returning to the old medieval viceroy / peasant relationship. Only the landowner can vote? If this was the case, none of you would own property.
Nah, just all residents and non-resident property owners get to vote for school and town elections.