Now that the vacancy tax has been qualified for the November ballot, the City council is faced with the arduous task of trying to figure out how to make it all work. A difficult task at best and no doubt met with different opinions on what is a fair balance. A blanket policy is certainly not the answer, and I would suggest that there must be certain exemptions allowed if this initiative does indeed pass. I would like to suggest for consideration the following. Others may have additional issues to declare.
Loss-of-insurance exemption. Any homeowner fortunate enough to still have an active insurance policy in South Lake Tahoe and is forced to rent their home for financial reasons will find that their policy is canceled. A homeowner’s policy is not valid for a non-owner-occupied property. They will need to apply for a Commercial/Landlord policy to cover their new risks. We all know how easy it is to get insurance in the area. Not disclosing the new status of the property will only ensure that any claim will be denied. Being forced to turn our home into a rental property and losing all insurance coverage puts us in the very risky position of having a property that is in effect uninsured.
Low income/ financial hardship exemption. Not everyone that owns a second home in Lake Tahoe is wealthy. Many, like myself, are retired and on a fixed income and have had a home in the area for many years. The additional taxes required could indeed be the difference between being able to keep a home in the area and being forced to lose the use of it either by selling it or having to rent it out to others. Anyone that is subject to the Proposition 19 property tax penalties is already paying an increase of two, three, or even four times what they paid under the protections of Proposition 13 that were taken away with the passing of 19. The increase from an additional tax would be devastating to many.
Age/ condition exemption. Not every second home in the city is a modern 3 bedroom 2 bath house with a garage and modern energy-efficient features. My own cabin is a perfect example. Built in the early 1930s of mostly salvaged materials (the depression was in full swing) at almost 100 years old, as a three-season cabin, it remains as such today. Originally it had an outhouse, but thankfully an indoor bathroom was added sometime in the 1940s. The floor slopes slightly because it has no foundation, but simply sits upon the ground and moves with the seasons. The electrical system consists of old screw-in glass fuses and knob-and-tube wiring, some of which is exposed in the open joists of the 7′ ceilings. There is no gas service to my cabin, never has been. The sole source of heat being an old cast-iron woodstove as old as the structure. The windows, a mix of various types are wood-framed and single-pane. No weatherstripping or insulation anywhere exists. The driveway cannot be plowed because there is no driveway, only sandy ground, which means only street parking in winter. Over the years my cabin has been referred to by various contractors, inspectors, insurance agents, and appraisers as “a death trap”, a “fire hazard”, “a tear-down”, and “end of life”. I disagree of course. I’m not the only one in this position.
I cannot afford the vacancy tax and yet to avoid it I also cannot rent my cabin either because it does not meet any fire safety, code compliance, or egress standards, is not year-round habitable, and would be totally uninsured. This does not seem a fair representation of a member of this community for almost 50 years. Exemptions must be considered.
– David Parola