Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hippiepotluck t1_j7samqi wrote

What are you talking about? Some Vermont towns even tax second homes at a lower rate than primary homes. Even those that do, it’s not punitively higher as you suggest. I know the rate in Manchester is only like 5% higher for second homeowners. I truly believe that that town is an example of where this is all leading and it’s not good. Second homeowners do not participate in the community and when there are too many vacant homes it becomes unsustainable. You can’t have a town that no one actually lives in no matter how much they pay in property tax.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7sggl7 wrote

Manchester is like stowe. It's technically in Vermont but it in no way resembles Vermont. I went there for the first time recently (grew up in northern VT). Holy shit. Such a strange place. I absolutely do not see the attraction to places like that. The Lincoln stuff is cool, I guess. Otherwise, eww.

3

hippiepotluck t1_j7sifsj wrote

Exactly. And it’s a bummer. There’s still good things, but more and more of the town is meant for people who don’t live there so it feels phony somehow. Like Uncanny Valley.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7sbbig wrote

Valid points, though I will also say outsiders use the roads the least, do not send their children to community schools, or take advantage of other town things so they get much less benefit for the tax they do pay. We can agree to disagree but some towns are just going to be that way. How would you change ski towns?

1

hippiepotluck t1_j7sf384 wrote

Honestly, I don’t think that matters. If you own x% of the value of a town you should pay at least that percent of the cost of running that town and educating its children. Whether you choose to use those services is not really relevant, if you live here you don’t get a tax break if you don’t have kids or don’t drive.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7sfiui wrote

That’s fair! And I think the current system is plenty fair to the locals as is.

1