Letter: NO on South Lake Tahoe Vacancy Tax Initiative

The Vacancy Tax initiative to tax 'vacant' second homes in South Lake Tahoe at a $6000 yearly rate is extraordinarily unfair to property owners who are not full-time residents in the city, yet who maintain their homes not as speculative ventures, but as intimate private family abodes.

The characterization of all such homes by the initiative as 'housing units' depersonalizes what to many of us are just extensions of our primary residences, albeit used intermittently, and exemplifies the callousness of the initiative's supporters.

In fact, my own home, purchased in 1998 by my deceased wife and I, I consider a legacy to be used solely by family and friends and passed down to them upon my death.

Residents should be wary of the Initiative, and not sign the circulating petition, for many reasons:

1. It is a prime example of taxation without representation, since non-resident homeowners are not afforded a vote in the matter.

2. It levies very significant costs on owners of private family homes to preserve their privacy: either one pays to have significant heirloom furniture and personal effects removed from the premises and stored for the duration of a rental, and then reinstituted when the owner wishes to occupy the property; or have them exposed to the whims of renters.

3. It requires prudent second-home owners to augment their liability and other residential insurances at non-trivial costs to them; to undertake repairs to the home caused by excessive wear-and-tear; and to be on call to renters for plumbing or other failures.

4. It exposes second-home owners to the very real possibility of high court costs, uncertain outcomes, and non-availability of the property for their own use, should renters refuse to vacate.

5. It effectively bars the homeowner from spontaneous and unplanned use of the property, since coordination with renters would be necessary.

6. It imposes unnecessary taxes on retirees and others who can ill afford them.

7. It interferes with one's right to utilize property as one sees fit, provided such use observes all ordinances and is not a nuisance.

8. It implicitly requires homeowners to set rental fees sufficiently low to attract renters, lest the owner be unable to rent the property and hence be subject to the tax. As such, it is an infringement of one's right in commerce to sell services at a price of one's choosing.

Supporters of the initiative are imbuing second-home owners with an aura of selfishly withholding lodging to a needy population, akin to Marie Antoinette's 'let them eat cake' utterance. They fail altogether to recognize the valuable contributions made by second-home owners to the South Lake Tahoe community and labor force through tax and utility payments, and patronage of local businesses and dining establishments.

I urge the public NOT to sign the Vacancy Tax Initiative.

- Ross Wilson