6 ms·

in sleepy seacoast new hampshire I overheard a local with a sharp quip about the rich owners of vacant autumn luxury waterfront apartments: "it's not your prese

in sleepy seacoast new hampshire I overheard a local with a sharp quip about the rich owners of vacant autumn luxury waterfront apartments: "it's not your presence we despise, it's your absence"

briHass 3y ago
Probably should be careful what they wish for. It seems to me that unused vacation properties are optimal for the residents: they pay much higher taxes as a secondary residence and they don't cause traffic or consume any resources.
- linster 3y ago
  Except the space (opportunity cost) of building more housing
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  The community would rather either have cheaper housing for actual residents, or the wealthy person spending their money there regularly. What we have is the worst of both worlds.
  - briHass 3y ago
    When the wealthy vacation home owners actually take an interest in local politics and change the types of businesses (and pricing structure) through their upscale tastes and discretionary income, the residents are still unhappy. This is the classic $20 cheeseburger and martini bar problem in what used to be a blue collar town.
    - wrsh07 3y ago
      I don't think this is quite right Restaurants are a tough business, so towns with a high vacancy rate end up being unable to support very many restaurants. Forget the quality of the restaurant, lots of these places barely have any restaurants (or they're very seasonal) Honestly, I wonder if one could do a "benefit local business tax" where they tax the non primary residents and then just subsidize the types of local businesses they want to keep open (it's hard to design good systems for this though!)
    - danaris 3y ago
      You're presenting a false dichotomy here: "Either the rich people from elsewhere own the houses and don't live in them actively, or the rich people from elsewhere own the houses and do live in them actively." There's a third option you're ignoring: The rich people from elsewhere don't own those houses. They're priced more affordably and owned by locals who genuinely care about the area.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Yup, locals in vacation areas always like to complain about their revenue & employment source. Having a large cohort paying full property taxes without consuming services (police & school being the largest) either suppresses the locals taxes or increases the services they would be able to get otherwise. Everyone wants to live in the goldilocks situation of a desirable area with low prices, good services, low taxes, good commutes (low traffic and-or good transit), and plentiful jobs. I've lived in various areas from rural, suburban to Manhattan and.. you can usually have 2.5 out of 5 at best.
  - wrsh07 3y ago
    I have a lot of sympathy for individuals in tourist areas - they didn't necessarily decide to live in a touristy place (they may have grown up there, they might be a teacher or have a job that brought them there unrelated to tourism) In touristy Montana cities the amenities are nice sure, but people aren't there for that. They're there to ski or hike or bike. Regarding your last point - Manhattan can hit 3/5 if you can coordinate your apt and work locations.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      Though in Manhattan the 3 good commute/plentiful jobs/good services are probably offset by how bad the 2 bad are - housing & taxes :-)
- beowulfey 3y ago
  What kind of resources do you mean? They still have to heat and power their homes, so it still “consumes resources”. Unless you are talking about buying local groceries or something. Propery taxes are the same in NH whether someone lives there full time or not, so it doesn’t matter that they aren’t there and would be equally valuable if they did live full time. The traffic argument is the only one I can see being true, except that traffic in the seacoast is awful already anyway with tourists driving back and forth to Maine. Personally, I think having permanent residents is far better for a town than a graveyard of empty soulless homes, but I’m just a regular human being and I’m sure its just a matter of opinion at that point.
  - shuckles 3y ago
    Utilities are paid for by use, so that's not really relevant to municipal finances. Even still, the power and water use of an unoccupied residence is obviously much lower than an occupied one. Property taxes pay for municipal services like parks, schools, and police. The rest of the town's residents get better versions of those than they could afford otherwise. This isn't a very complex idea, regardless of whether you think the town would be better off with more people living within it full-time.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      In my town schools are about 60-70% of property taxes and, with a new regional high school being built, that number will probably go up. That's pretty typical situation in Massachusetts towns around where I live. We're certainly a year-round town. But it's a reality of a lot of coastal communities as you get up the coast further that, if they're not commercial fishing ports, they do largely close down in the winter. If there weren't summer homes and a tourist industry, not many people would live there.
    - beowulfey 3y ago
      Yes but my point is that for an equally valuable house the property tax contributes equally to those resources whether they live there or not, but I can’t imagine the burden of someone living full time in a house of that value is very high on such resources. I understand what you are suggesting conceptually, but I disagree on the impact. If there are any numbers on such a resource burden maybe I’ll change my mind! I’m not sure if there is data out there for this kind of thing. Unless you are suggesting replacing such a home with higher numbers of lower value homes. Obviously that would be a different story.

in sleepy seacoast new hampshire I overheard a local with a sharp quip about the rich owners of vacant autumn luxury waterfront apartments: "it's not your presence we despise, it's your absence"

briHass 3y ago

Probably should be careful what they wish for. It seems to me that unused vacation properties are optimal for the residents: they pay much higher taxes as a secondary residence and they don't cause traffic or consume any resources.

linster 3y ago
Except the space (opportunity cost) of building more housing
CuriouslyC 3y ago
The community would rather either have cheaper housing for actual residents, or the wealthy person spending their money there regularly. What we have is the worst of both worlds.
- briHass 3y ago
  When the wealthy vacation home owners actually take an interest in local politics and change the types of businesses (and pricing structure) through their upscale tastes and discretionary income, the residents are still unhappy. This is the classic $20 cheeseburger and martini bar problem in what used to be a blue collar town.
  - wrsh07 3y ago
    I don't think this is quite right Restaurants are a tough business, so towns with a high vacancy rate end up being unable to support very many restaurants. Forget the quality of the restaurant, lots of these places barely have any restaurants (or they're very seasonal) Honestly, I wonder if one could do a "benefit local business tax" where they tax the non primary residents and then just subsidize the types of local businesses they want to keep open (it's hard to design good systems for this though!)
  - danaris 3y ago
    You're presenting a false dichotomy here: "Either the rich people from elsewhere own the houses and don't live in them actively, or the rich people from elsewhere own the houses and do live in them actively." There's a third option you're ignoring: The rich people from elsewhere don't own those houses. They're priced more affordably and owned by locals who genuinely care about the area.
steveBK123 3y ago
Yup, locals in vacation areas always like to complain about their revenue & employment source. Having a large cohort paying full property taxes without consuming services (police & school being the largest) either suppresses the locals taxes or increases the services they would be able to get otherwise. Everyone wants to live in the goldilocks situation of a desirable area with low prices, good services, low taxes, good commutes (low traffic and-or good transit), and plentiful jobs. I've lived in various areas from rural, suburban to Manhattan and.. you can usually have 2.5 out of 5 at best.
- wrsh07 3y ago
  I have a lot of sympathy for individuals in tourist areas - they didn't necessarily decide to live in a touristy place (they may have grown up there, they might be a teacher or have a job that brought them there unrelated to tourism) In touristy Montana cities the amenities are nice sure, but people aren't there for that. They're there to ski or hike or bike. Regarding your last point - Manhattan can hit 3/5 if you can coordinate your apt and work locations.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Though in Manhattan the 3 good commute/plentiful jobs/good services are probably offset by how bad the 2 bad are - housing & taxes :-)
beowulfey 3y ago
What kind of resources do you mean? They still have to heat and power their homes, so it still “consumes resources”. Unless you are talking about buying local groceries or something. Propery taxes are the same in NH whether someone lives there full time or not, so it doesn’t matter that they aren’t there and would be equally valuable if they did live full time. The traffic argument is the only one I can see being true, except that traffic in the seacoast is awful already anyway with tourists driving back and forth to Maine. Personally, I think having permanent residents is far better for a town than a graveyard of empty soulless homes, but I’m just a regular human being and I’m sure its just a matter of opinion at that point.
- shuckles 3y ago
  Utilities are paid for by use, so that's not really relevant to municipal finances. Even still, the power and water use of an unoccupied residence is obviously much lower than an occupied one. Property taxes pay for municipal services like parks, schools, and police. The rest of the town's residents get better versions of those than they could afford otherwise. This isn't a very complex idea, regardless of whether you think the town would be better off with more people living within it full-time.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    In my town schools are about 60-70% of property taxes and, with a new regional high school being built, that number will probably go up. That's pretty typical situation in Massachusetts towns around where I live. We're certainly a year-round town. But it's a reality of a lot of coastal communities as you get up the coast further that, if they're not commercial fishing ports, they do largely close down in the winter. If there weren't summer homes and a tourist industry, not many people would live there.
  - beowulfey 3y ago
    Yes but my point is that for an equally valuable house the property tax contributes equally to those resources whether they live there or not, but I can’t imagine the burden of someone living full time in a house of that value is very high on such resources. I understand what you are suggesting conceptually, but I disagree on the impact. If there are any numbers on such a resource burden maybe I’ll change my mind! I’m not sure if there is data out there for this kind of thing. Unless you are suggesting replacing such a home with higher numbers of lower value homes. Obviously that would be a different story.