Updated Dec. 18
With the days getting shorter, it’s impossible not to notice the darkened homes around the Island where the lights are off on winter evenings — like broken bulbs along a string of Christmas lights. Second homes, filled with vibrant families in the summer months, go cold in the winter.
The latest stats from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission puts the number of vacant homes on the Island at about 10,700 — a remarkable number that means more than half the houses on the Vineyard are owned by seasonal residents or second homeowners who are here six months out of the year, or less.
The Vineyard has long been a seasonal destination, and that’s great, but coupled with a national housing crisis, inflation, and growing inequity, the discrepancy between second homeowners and Islanders has been harder and harder to ignore.
A solution will be a multifaceted, complex one that will take a lot of different solutions and outside-the-box thinking. And there may never be a solution, and the Island as we know it for locals will continue to erode.
But one outside-the-box tool is called a residential tax exemption, a seemingly boring term, but one that could help level the playing field.
A little primer on municipal finance for background: Towns rely on taxing properties within their borders to fund their budgets, their schools, their police officers and firefighters. Traditionally, all homes and properties are taxed at the same rate. In the ’70s, Massachusetts created the residential exemption, to shift the tax burden onto vacation homes, vacant land, and second homeowners. For example, in West Tisbury, if the town were to enact a 20-percent residential tax exemption, the average year-round homeowner (with a home valued at $1.48 million) would see an annual saving of $1,525 on their tax bill; at 30 percent which is the amount approved by the town on November 19 the year-round home owner would save approximately $2,383. For a second home owner with the same value property in West Tisbury, this measure, if it reaches a final certification by the state Department of Revenue, would increase the tax burden by $683.
But state lawmakers and the governor have seen the tool as one way of helping communities like the Vineyard address its housing shortages. Currently the state has allowed up to 35 percent for a residential tax exemption for a year-round home owner. In a state housing bill signed by Gov. Maura Healey in 2024, one provision allows towns considered seasonal communities to increase their residential tax exemption to a whopping 50 percent. The six Island towns fit the bill, and are designated with the special seasonal communities deduction. Looking at West Tisbury again, if there were a 50 percent residential exemption, the owner of a home assessed at $1.5 million would see savings of more than $4,000 annually. That could be groceries for a whole year for a senior on a fixed income.
It can be hard to feel sympathetic for someone with a home valued at $1.5 million. But the reality is, these aren’t millionaires (unless they sell their home, of course, but by then, the only reasonable option would be to move off-Island). These are young families getting a start, or an elderly couple on a fixed income whose home has suddenly shot up in value. That $4,000 a year in savings could be the difference between eking out a living on the Vineyard or leaving.
Some Island towns have dabbled with the idea already. Tisbury has placed an exemption at about 20 percent; Oak Bluffs went to 15 percent last year, and decided against going up again. So far, West Tisbury has taken the boldest move, increasing the residential tax exemption to 30 percent, which saves the average homeowner about $2,000 a year.
We applaud the West Tisbury Select Board for taking the progressive step, but we encourage other towns to take similar action.
We understand that this is an added burden to those who have a second home on the Island, and that second home owners are crucial contributors to town budgets. It may feel unfair for second homeowners who may be unable to attend the public hearings, especially if their town doesn’t offer a virtual or hybrid meeting option. Still, the housing crisis is real and creative solutions will need to be made in order to allow year-round residents to afford to live on the island.
Taxes are not a bad word. They are used to solve a problem by taxing the issue that is causing the problem itself.
The seasonal nature of Martha’s Vineyard isn’t a problem until it is. And right now, it is a serious problem. By increasing our residential tax exemptions and shifting the burden onto second homeowners, we are effectively giving locals — those who keep the Island spinning and are having difficulty maintaining a life amid inflation and skyrocketing housing prices — a needed break.
A Christmas candle flickering in the window, if you will, framed against a dark winter night.
EDITOR’S NOTE – This story was revised and a new headline was added to more accurately reflect the nuances of the debate around a residential tax exemption. We will continue covering the story as it unfolds. Tuesday December 16, 2025 Chilmark became the last town to adopt its annual tax rate, and joined Aquinnah and Edgartown in choosing a single tax rate for all properties in their respective towns. The other half of the Island’s towns, West Tisbury, Tisbury, and Oak Bluffs, have voted to adopt a form of the rebate for year-round residents.
The MV Times is right. When more than 10,700 homes sit dark all winter, that isn’t “seasonality” — it’s a housing market overtaken by outside wealth.
The median Island home is about $1.4 million, while the median Island wage is about $58,000. No teacher in Oak Bluffs, no EMT in Edgartown, no shellfisherman in Tisbury can compete with that buying power. We are losing year-round families not because they want to leave, but because the math no longer allows them to stay.
Residential tax exemptions exist because of this imbalance. Seasonal owners rely on our police, fire, EMS, wastewater, roads, and infrastructure, yet contribute little to the year-round economy.
Shifting more of the tax burden onto second homes isn’t punishment — it’s fiscal honesty in a community where half the housing stock stands empty most of the year.
Beacon Hill understood this when it authorized exemptions up to 50 percent for seasonal communities like ours. A $4,000 reduction for a working West Tisbury family can be the difference between stability and displacement.
If we want an Island of Islanders — not just an Island of investments — we need to strengthen the residential exemption.
“Seasonal owners rely on our police, fire, EMS, wastewater, roads, and infrastructure, yet contribute little to the year-round economy.”
Completely disagree with this asssertion. Seasonal residents already pay for any town resources they require while here. And then some. They cover a year’s worth of taxes on high-dollar properties that go towards things they seldom or never utilize, such as our school system.
That’s fine—it’s by choice—but I don’t understand this idea that even more is owed. Their current contribution to the economy is what allows, in part, numerous Islanders to get through the winter. Lots of construction workers would be in trouble if not for jobs associated with second homeownership.
An empty house still needs maintenance. How many locals moonlight as year-round caretakers? How many pricey additions and renos take place during the off-season in preparation for summer? Owners don’t have to be present on the Vineyard for all twelve months to continue supporting its workforce full-time.
I’m sympathetic to financial hardships and affordable housing issues. Just not to the point of blurring facts. There’s a fine line between exploring options out of necessity and sounding entitled/resentful of people from Away.
Absolutely correct ?
Katie, I don’t dispute that second homeowners contribute to the Island. They do — through construction jobs, landscaping, caretaking, and the tax base.
But those contributions don’t erase the central problem: the Vineyard’s housing market and municipal budget are being shaped by people who are not here most of the year, while year-round families struggle to remain.
Seasonal owners pay taxes, yes, but year-round residents actually use and sustain the schools, fire departments, EMS system, wastewater, roads, and winter economy.
When half the Island’s homes sit empty, the tax burden on locals rises faster than their wages, because essential services must be funded for a 12-month population even though the tax base is distorted by 3-month residents. That is exactly why the state created — and expanded — the residential exemption.
As for the economy: construction and caretaking jobs exist everywhere in Massachusetts. What distinguishes the Vineyard crisis is that those same workers cannot live anywhere near the communities they serve. That is not “resentment”; it’s a structural failure.
A modest tax shift doesn’t punish anyone. It simply aligns contributions with impact, so the people who keep the Island functioning 12 months a year can afford to stay on it.
Who gets to decide who lives and visits here?
Is the island only for people born and raised here?
Is the island only for the ultra wealthy? A sort of “Disneyland” for rich people?
Or an enclave of privacy that famous people require?
Just a point to ponder. Summer tourism is a huge part of the island economy. Shifting the tax burden to people who rent out their homes may force them to raise prices.
This may put a summer vacation on the vineyard just out of reach for the people who work all year for the one nice vacation
It’s not all second homes for ultra wealthy
Sometimes it’s just an average person trying to make a dream come true
Florida and Vegas are learning hard lessons about how much taxes they can squeeze from tourism
For every conversation about who’s fair share of taxes is what, we need a second conversation about how much existing tax money is being wasted and beak wetted by the people in charge of it
This is well-stated and is the most viable, realistic approach to saving our community. The working class needs support in this environment, or this will become strictly a resort island. We’re halfway there, according to the stats on empty houses!
What portion of this island’s economy is related to tourism?
What portion of these dollars are related to second- homeowners or their rental customers ?
These proposals are more punitive than they are likely to be effective at addressing the housing crisis, – a concern that even second homeowners here share with year-rounders.
Enough with the land bank fees and the diverging tax rates.
Apply a portion or even all of the 2% tax on home sales currently filling land bank coffers to housing and put people 1st.
Why can’t legitimate people earn or inherit legitimate money and spend it on legitimate homes anywhere they want? You’re going to tax rich people higher than your local laws dictate? Wokeism, thank God, has gone, but now you want to embrace Mamdani and his communist beliefs? Have you seen their Uganda compound? Get with the real world – it’s out there 7 miles away.
Murray Harvey is usually correct but not on this one. Those homes that stay empty pay full taxes and use little or no resources, nor school and yet they provided growth for builders and maintenance workers. the housing shortages are not going to be fixed by taxing more, but by disabusing ourselves of the notion that we cant build more on the island. Large swaths of land exist in the interior of MV and could be used for condos and small homes and other forms of residence but the MV Commision and some other elites wont abide for it.
I agree, Andrew. We need more small dwellings for essential workers. Teachers, police, etc. Many in the market for affordable housing aren’t looking for large homes.
In terms of taxes, I think the biggest threat to year-round Islanders is the poor decision-making within town government. The cost of the Tisbury School left those on fixed incomes hurting, and now the high school project is set to do more damage, despite the building’s problems being well known for years. A solution will cost far more than proper maintenance would’ve.
John McCarthy is also correct about the need to examine existing spending. That could ease some of the burden on everyone, local or not.
Maybe the locals should focus more on approving more housing to be built? The seasonal homeowners are not the ones voting against increasing the housing supply, it is the local year round voters that elect, encourage and enable the obstructionists.
Who are these year round families moving away? The student population in the school system across the island has remained remarkably consistent over the last decade. Why hasn’t that number declined if we are losing families? How many families would we actually lose because we are trying to destroy their livelihood by limiting the second home market? How many units of affordable housing is enough? How many people would love to move to the island if there’s affordable housing? Where does it end?
A seasonal home is a great contribution to the Island. They pay high taxes and use very little resources, such as the school system, the highest cost to towns. Maintenance on these homes creates many high paying jobs. The answer is not over taxing an important contributer, it’s Towns learning how to manage their wasteful expenses.
Amen
And what of the “Islander” who is also a second homeowner, and depends on the second home for an income? My guess is this group will be driven to the seasonal rental market as renting their second homes year round to “Islanders” becomes less practical and less affordable. That’s the trouble with imposing new taxes, they universally have a negative, unintended impact on the problem they are supposed to help solve.
It’s a bit of a stretch to conclude that all island homes vacant in midwinter are occupied only 3 months a year. And as others have suggested, many current islanders would be unable to stay without the seasonal economic boost and year round jobs enabled by those off island homeowners. Perhaps some local representation in town government included with the increased taxation might make it seem more equitable.
The tools given to our towns by the state legislature are for the year round residents benefit. The state governments understanding of the pressures placed upon year round residents who live in a community which includes a high number of second homes is commendable and shows a forward outlook to strengthen communities. Now we must call upon our communities Select Board members to use the tools given to them for the best possible results of their respective constituents.
I like the idea of this but in some cases, like mine, I make for than the trigger for the savings, thus I don’t qualify. I work for a municipality, I am not self employed, my income is decided by the contract of which I work under, thus fixed. My wife and I live pay check to pay check, we are not millionaires but any stretch of the imagination, just working class. If you own a home on MV, and are a year round resident, you should qualify for the residential tax credit. Residency is easy to prove. I know I sure could benefit from the tax exemption.
Comments are closed.