To the editor:
I am writing to respond to elements of Patrick White’s October 2 Letter to the Editor. Patrick wanted to downplay the concepts of divisiveness. My response is that the residential tax exemption (RTE) does create division. Take two homeowners who live next door to each other with similarly high-value properties. One is a part-time and the other a full-time resident, who, after any establishment of an RTE, will have different tax rates. The full-time resident with a high-value property is likely just as able to pay their tax bill as the seasonal resident. Yet they would benefit from the RTE. Another example to consider is a part-time resident with long-standing, multi-generational ties to Stockbridge, who may have a small second home that will now be saddled with an increase that they may be unable to pay. Is this potentially divisive? I think yes.
For much of the over 32 years I have had a home in Stockbridge, I have had residency here. More recently, due to a family health issue, my wife and are spending more of the year near children in another state. As a result, I am now in the cohort of second-home owners. I think by creating something that causes division, the value of the time and resources I and other part-time residents contribute to our town is ignored. It is a very broad brush stroke to address an important, but specific, issue, housing costs, which are completely unaffected by the RTE. That issue may prevent younger middle-class families from coming to Stockbridge. It also doesn’t take into consideration that there are already avenues for which existing residents who may be having trouble paying taxes or other bills can apply to assist them financially. It sows division by distinguishing between part-time and full-time homeowners rather than something based on need of means, which would be more aligned with what it is purporting to do. Although I write this as a private citizen, I am a member of the Affordable Housing Trust that is seeking to address the actual problem of housing affordability head on in a collaborative and cohesive manner without being divisive. The residential tax exemption is not a targeted response to this important issue it is purported to be addressing. It will do nothing to make housing more affordable.
A second point that creates divisiveness: Under the current equitably applied tax rate, second-home owners, at Patrick’s quote of 43 percent, are funding almost half of the town’s budget. He also doesn’t mention that seasonal residents have a personal property tax that full-time residents do not that already creates a differential in what part-time versus full-time residents pay. Furthermore, the taxes they pay are going for services that they either don’t use at all, like the schools, which take up a significant portion of the town’s budget, or services they use far less than the full-time residents, just because they are not here for 12 months a year.
He references all the “middle-class teenagers” and parents who have either seasonal jobs or work at the nonprofits or as landscapers, plumbers, electricians, or builders. How many of them would even have the work that they do if the seasonal-home owners were not here?
The issue of exercising an option to declare residency and vote here is far more complicated than what Patrick stated: just being here for six months and a day. That is a first hurdle, but there is a litany of other requirements that one must fulfill in order to have a declaration of residency established and accepted, such as the state in which you work and the source of your income, just to name two key ones. In fact, because of all the other requirements of establishing residency being more than just the 183 day presence somewhere, states are increasingly challenging people’s primary domicile claims, and there are towns that have actually removed people from the voting roles because they don’t meet enough of the other requirements. It also totally completely ignores why someone’s primary residence is elsewhere. There could be longstanding family issues or proximity to children or other ties to where they need to declare their principal residence. There could also be professional obligations or health issues that require them to be elsewhere for more than half the year.
I am certain if we put our heads together, as those of us on the Affordable Housing Trust are doing, we can find a more cohesive way to address the problematic things Patrick has appropriately identified without creating the divisive “we vs. them” scenario. Contrary to what Patrick has implied, the assertion of divisiveness is real; it is not just a “self-fulfilling way of getting one’s way”!
Bruce Auerbach
Stockbridge
NOTE: Bruce Auerbach is a member of the Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust; however, he writes the above as a private citizen.
Click here to read The Berkshire Edge’s policy for submitting Letters to the Editor.