Misbegotten editorial 

To the Editor: 

The MV Times editorial published Dec. 4, “Save the Islander; tax the second homeowner,” urges towns to adopt a whopping 50 percent residential tax exemption, without a blushing acknowledgment that taxation without representation may spur resentment among second homeowners. whom The Times wants to shoulder an even larger share of the property tax burden.

No doubt year-rounders would welcome the extra dollars. Still, while soaking the seasonal homeowners because we can may play to the crowd, it will not moderate the costs of living for Islanders, who, in all fairness (another overlooked notion), bear much responsibility for the predicament the Island now finds itself in.

Island voters make the municipal spending decisions that fuel rising property tax bills. Those line items and salary increases add up. Rejecting state school building funds, as Tisbury did, has financial repercussions. 

Year-round rentals, let alone affordable ones, did not disappear suddenly. Islanders have been talking about the issue for years. Islanders create zoning regulations, lard on conditions, and sit in judgment on affordable housing building projects at the local and regional levels. Bridge Commons, which became Kuehn’s Way, took more than two decades to come to fruition.

We accept six of everything: select boards, administrators, police and fire departments, libraries, dog catchers, etc. Regional thinking, not so much.

The editorial makes much of the fact that “more than half the houses on the Vineyard are owned by seasonal residents or second homeowners who are here three months out of the year, or less.” But that is a good thing. They send no kids to school. According to the state department of education, Martha’s Vineyard’s per-pupil expenditure is $37,399, the fifth-highest in the state.

Those seasonal homeowners also underwrite discounted SSA Islander excursion rates. A round-trip winter vehicle trip is $73 for us, and $140 for “them.” In the summer, we really stick it to them: $106 for us and $242 ($320 Friday–Sunday) for them.

But hey, they’re rich, and we’re not. Not really. Not everyone.

My neighbor, a painting contractor, his family, and friends use their modest home sparingly over the summer. Happily for us, they don’t rent it out. I’d love to see thousands of dollars lopped off my tax bill. How do I look him in the eye and tell him that it is fair that he should pay more in taxes because he doesn’t live year-round on Martha’s Vineyard?

A few doors down, a single woman hangs on to the family home by renting it out. She and her children get to enjoy the house in the off-season. Given the disparity in tax rates, at 50 percent, she could pay more in taxes than a year-round, wealthy resident.

Islanders and off-Island property owners who forgo inflated summer rents and rent their houses out to year-round residents will see their costs increase.

If middle-class seasonal homeowners with longstanding Island ties decide to cash in their chips because they don’t want to be in the weekly rental business but can’t afford rising costs, and more year-round rentals become Vacasa stock, another segment of our community will be lost.

The Island is fortunate to have wealthy people who own seasonal homes here. They support a range of Island home services. The generous ones helped build our new $50 million Martha’s Vineyard Hospital, support nonprofit organizations, and contribute to a range of pet projects.

The seasonal nature of Martha’s Vineyard creates some knotty issues, for sure. But some significant blessings turn up as well. Mere burden shifting –– because we can –– won’t solve the problem.

Nelson Sigelman
Vineyard Haven