Letter: The actual truth in Lake Tahoe - Don't believe the hype

Dear Editor: The very first residences that were built in Tahoe were vacation homes, which were shuttered for winter until the families came back to visit to enjoy the summer activities. South Lake Tahoe's cultural heritage is built upon our recreational opportunities and visitors.

Fast forward to today - over time, many vacationers who are now our teachers, firefighters, retail and grocery workers, and healthcare providers became residents because they loved Tahoe when they visited for what they thought would be just one summer or ski season - and they stayed. It took many sacrifices and hard work, including multiple jobs, to pay rent and build savings for down payments to get a foothold on homeownership.

Those local private property owners will be affected by an onerous tax if there is not an occupant in their house for at least 182 days of the year. Many have had modest cabins that have been in their family for generations.

Visitors and second homeowners already pay for the locals to live here. Our economy only exists because of the tourism industry. The contributions from tax revenue fund the City coffers, and keep our locals employed, and businesses open.

A vacancy tax petition is being pushed forward by a group asking for signatures to put the question on the November ballot. Many of the proponents for taxation are newcomers to our community, and they are welcome to be here, just as visitors are. We hope that all who live, work, and visit here understand the reality of our resort town. Trying to create new taxes is not the path to prosperity for anyone.

Here are truths to consider regarding this proposition:

- This tax is modeled from a Berkley tax, and Tahoe is not Berkley.
- The proposed proposition is not about affordable housing. The wording does not specify that funds would go to any sort of housing and would go to the general fund for the City Council to do with the monies as they see fit.
- The City would be increasing its funding budget by $34 million, which is a 60% increase to its overall budget. Many homeowners would pay $6,000 per year, with no oversight or guarantee that the City would get into the business of housing residents.
- There are costs to the City to administer this large tax increase, which depletes resources that could be used for other City services.
- Private property owners will be subject to answering to the City on personal matters related to the use of their property.

If the City decided to use the funds for housing, the number of new housing units that may or may not be built would be about 34 units per year - at a price tag of $1 million per unit.

Those desperate to get your signature are misguided. There are other solutions to create housing and homeownership than trying to tax our way out of housing issues. There have been biased graphs and data promoted by the pro-tax group. The math does not make sense if you dig into it, as well as the statistics provided.

A vacancy tax penalizes our second homeowner population, which already supports the community, and does nothing except collect more money. After the costs of bureaucracy to administer and enforce the tax, funds raised would only be a drop in the bucket towards actual solutions, with no guarantees future City Councils would put funds raised towards housing.

~ Shannon Witt, South Lake Tahoe