it seems many of the same persons who are anti the vacancy tax are also anti low income housing in South Lake Tahoe. You can see them during "public comments" at City Council meetings.
They say, if someone can't
pay 3K rent, they should go out and get a second or third job, instead of
expecting “the rest of us” to provide them with ‘”welfare housing.”
Later those same
persons get up and say a $3K vacancy tax on a second home in Tahoe is unfair, indeed
a financial hardship, and many may lose their second homes.
Well then, why doesn't the
second homeowner get a second or third job so they can pay the $3K a year tax?
By the anti-vacancy tax
logic, If they can't pay the tax and still want to keep their property, doesn't
that make them “welfare second homeowners” expecting “the rest of us” to pick
up the slack?
It all comes down to
paying your fair share. Tahoe is beautiful and expensive, and real estate markets
change. I'm age 76 and I've lived through dozens of property tax increases; you
cannot avoid death and taxes as they say.
It's a lot easier for a
second homeowner to pay 3K a year tax than it is for a single mom to pay 3K a
month rent.
-Kay Ebeling
No comments:
Post a Comment