Owners of second homes in West Tisbury will be receiving an increased property tax bill.
In a 2–1 vote, the West Tisbury select board decided to adopt a 5 percent residential tax exemption during a Wednesday afternoon hearing.
The measure will give year-round homeowners a small discount on their tax bill, while second homeowners will see an increase.
The decision was made in an effort to help year-round residents struggling with a high cost of living.
Select board member Skipper Manter was the sole dissenting vote on Wednesday; he argued it was an unfair measure, and divided the community. “Why should my neighbor pay a different tax rate than I do just because he doesn’t live here year-round?” Manter said.
According to West Tisbury town assessor MacGregor Anderson, 651 residents prequalified for the exemption, although there are roughly 300 more people who may also be eligible and who have until April 2025 to apply.
A West Tisbury household with a property of the median residential value of $1.448 million would see cost savings of $344 annually. That’s based on fiscal year 2025 estimations with a 5 percent exemption.
Meanwhile, those who do not have West Tisbury as their primary residence with the same property values would see an uptick of $87.
West Tisbury homeowners likely won’t notice a change anyway, under the current exemption amount, with the expectation that the town’s operation budget will increase. The median household is likely to see a tax increase of $175 from last year, according to Anderson. Year-round residents would actually see the savings starting at the 10 percent exemption mark, which is the maximum he recommended to the board for this year.
The exemption has been controversial in town. Opponents of the tax measure argued it puts an additional burden on second homeowners, many of whom can’t vote in the town, and that it sowed division in the community. Proponents defended the exemption, saying it was a necessary measure to keep year-round residents remaining in West Tisbury in the midst of an Island-wide housing crisis. Residents have also made their cases in a series of letters to the town.
The only public comment at Wednesday’s hearing came from Laura Silber, Martha’s Vineyard Commission housing planner. She said the residential exemption was a common tool used by communities to preserve year-round residents. “The state of Massachusetts considers it a fair and equitable way to do this,” she said.
Silber also pointed out that the seasonal communities designation passed in the Affordable Homes Act would allow for the limits on residential tax exemptions of 35 percent to be raised to 50 percent in places like Martha’s Vineyard.
Select board members Jessica Miller and Cynthia Mitchell both expressed their support for the tax change.
“We’ll see … the greatest amount of impact for our primary domicile residents in a year our taxes are going to increase significantly,” Miller said.
Mitchell, who had reached out to year-round and seasonal residents, said she initially thought the exemption was unfair.
“The thing that changed my mind this time … the need for affordable housing is so huge. It’s [a] crisis,” she said, adding that the town can control the rate at how high the percentage increase goes.
Manter objected to the exemption, saying not everyone who has a second home on the Vineyard is wealthy. He also said second homeowners do not get a say in changes in the town, such as at town meetings. He added that the country didn’t need any more division, with “plenty more of that coming up.” He advocated for being “respectful of our neighbors,” some of whom have returned to the Island for years, and actively participate in the community.
Especially given this vote, please explain why the town shouldn’t work to allow all West Tisbury homeowners who are citizens and pay taxes to vote at town meeting and in town elections.
So unfair.
It may be allowed but that does not make it right.
Many second homeowners have had their property in the family for generations.
This does not make them wealthy, just fortunate.
This is not going to make properties more affordable for Islanders.
This may create a greater social divide between Islanders and second homeowners than already exists.
Second homeowners get to pay more because they use less.
Penalize the guy who can’t do anything about it.
Brilliant!
Bravo to Skip for standing up for what is right.
Taxation without representation at its finest.
Should you able to vote in all local elections where you own property?
Anyone wealthy enough to have a second home on the Island is wealthy enough to pay a slightly higher tax bill. Too bad the Selectboard didn’t vote a 10% differential.
Richard,
That is incorrect and mean spirited.
Many second home owners are not wealthy enough to pay any additional amounts.
Taxes have doubled over the last 7 years and it is getting difficult to make ends meet.
Vendor cost have skyrocketed too.
In reality, second home owners should be paying for the services they use, not supporting a local that does not appreciate all that has been done for them, and get to pay more for far less than the locals receive.
Maybe you don’t care now that you are recently a full time resident.
Shame on you.
All second home owners are wealthy enough to own two homes.
Most of the Island can not afford one.
Drive out the two home owners.
Do they make the island better?
The fact is there are plenty of wealthy year-round residents who do not need this exemption. Their “savings” will now be passed on to seasonal residents who may or may not actually be as wealthy.
It is unfortunate that the majority of our selectmen bought into the false distinction of year-round vs. seasonal. That is no way to distribute the tax burden in a fair and equitable manner.
I’m with Skipper on this. I believe the town would be better served by holding costs in check — which they do not seem inclined to do — rather than passing on our year-round “needs & desires” to seasonal homeowners . There are many factors contributing to affordability, taxes being only one of those things. Rather than basing the exemption on year-round status perhaps it should be based on actual wealth and the ability to pay.
Massachusetts is not the best authority for determining “fair and equitable”. If they were, they would have rescinded the regressive sales tax decades ago. If Massachusetts was interested in helping to solve affordable housing, they would immediately abandon the sales tax in order to let working families have more money in their pocket to meet daily needs.
Instead, this is just adding another layer of governmental intrusion and creating social division. We are certainly in need of more of both of those things.
The reasoning of generational inheritance or non-consumption of services is hollow. It someone has inherited property they can afford the upkeep involved. As for not using services, while it’s true their children don’t attend school in WT, I ask the following. Do you count on police, fire and ambulance services? Do you use the library? Drive on the roads? Lifeguards and town beach maintenance? Use the dump? None of this is free.
Generational inheritance and non consumption of services are not hollow positions. Inheritance of a property on Martha’s Vineyard does not guarantee the beneficiary has the necessary income to cover the increased monthly expenses to carry their newly acquired property. Think of a retired person on a fixed income. It’s true a seasonal resident still requires police and fire services in the off season however their service demands are significantly lower than those of a full time resident. I won’t be calling for an ambulance when I am off island 11 months per year. The same can be said for the roads, library, and dump. Seasonal residents pay taxes to support the services you mentioned. The main issue is why aren’t full time island residents who can afford to help their neighbors required to do so by sharing the burden of increased property taxes?
Susan — I’m surprised that you believe that if someone inherits property they can automatically afford the upkeep.
If you do believe that then you should also advocate that children — and grandchildren — of Island property owners should not be allowed to enter the lotteries for affordable housing lots. There are PLENTY of “islanders” who have been awarded an affordable lot EVEN THOUGH their parents and/or grandparents own several pieces of property on MV. They now not only own property acquired at below-market-rate price but also stand to inherit property of substantial value. This is how things are done on Martha’s Vineyard.
Comments are closed.