Letter: Resident takes issue with proposed vacancy tax and its supporters

A few months ago, I wrote to the community regarding how Scott Robbins was an injustice collector and a self-proclaimed subject matter expert. Since my last letter, Scott has continued to lie to the public regarding the vacancy tax petition, which he disguised to the public as an “Affordable housing” petition, causing people to sign the petition thinking it’s something it clearly is not.

Scott lied to his supporters about the deadline the signatures needed to be collected, he sent his like-minded followers to go out to local schools to try and solicit signatures, really crossing some lines.

What exactly are Scott’s motivations for the South Lake Tahoe community?

Scott is a newbie to our community, being here for approximately five-plus years. He works remotely, which means to the best of my knowledge, he contributes nothing to this community. Scott has no children in the local school system, he is rarely seen at public events, including volunteering in the community or with local youth sports. Scott is under the mindset that if you don’t agree with him, you don’t get it, you don’t care, and he encourages the public to vote out any other councilmembers who dare to disagree with him and his radical agenda.

Scott likes to create “After Action Report” videos after every Council meeting, where he acts as the mouthpiece for the entire city council, yet he badmouths his colleagues, should they dare oppose his positions and/or votes. If you oppose him on Facebook, he will delete your comments and refuse to respond to his constituents, especially those who oppose and disagree with him.

With the above said, I have a few questions for the Vacancy Tax supporters.

First, why is it ok for anyone to dictate to others what they “MUST” do with their property? It’s either rent it to a local or pay a fine, in the form of a tax, for something someone else paid for.

What about those whose primary residence is in Tahoe, but they work elsewhere for their work week and won’t meet the six-month requirement?
Say someone can’t afford to pay the fine/tax, so they rent their property for 5-6 months. Then what happens when they come back? Do they just get to boot the temporary tenants? What do they do with their personal property and belongings during that “vacancy” period?

What about all those who lived here for decades, paid off their homes, contributed to this community, and may still contribute, yet can’t deal with the winter months anymore? They invested wisely, worked hard, and bought an affordable property in other locations like southern NV or AZ are just a few examples, but are by no means wealthy? Are we going to force them to sell?

Also, here’s a possible unintended consequence. What if someone can’t afford the tax and they don’t want to rent, do they sell and then even bigger money comes in and buys up the property?! Have you seen the number of big corporations buying up family homes all over the country? If not, I recommend looking into it.

I’m a primary resident, born and raised, yet this will impact me now and in the future. Being born and raised in Tahoe, I’ve seen it's ups, it's downs, it’s growth, and changes. I don’t like what’s being pushed currently and I refuse to sit back and watch one person try and destroy and divide our community. He doesn’t even dare to defend his positions - he just ignores and deletes your comments, questions, and concerns.

The initiative has numerous flaws, many are probably intentional:

-The Enforcement aspect is not outlined & would pose an astronomic burden on city staff (and on the local taxpayer). California utilities and their correlating data are private, so would not be available to vacancy tax “Watchdogs.” Every homeowner and renter would have to sign an annual affidavit attesting to the use and occupancy of THEIR property. I don't think renters or owners should be subject to that level of scrutiny, it is an invasion of privacy, hence the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution.

- California already has a "vacancy tax" in the way the proponents describe it. There is a $7,000 primary homeowner exemption.

- The funds are not guaranteed to go to affordable housing. It is one item in a long list of promised uses for the generated tax revenue. However, the city is not a developer, so how exactly is this tax going to directly open up more affordable housing? It likely won't. In fact, taxes raised from this can also go to enforcement and to the legal defense of the measure, which are likely to come like an avalanche.

- Legal defense. This piece of garbage being proposed likely won't be found legal and or Constitutional, as similar petition/ballot measures are currently being challenged in various courts.

- Scott and his followers have chosen division over unity to try and push this over the finish line. Their tactics have been to attack every other group in the community, sometimes personally and viciously. They have lied about the potential benefits and effects of this measure in order to obtain signatures, they have violated the election code by gathering signatures on school grounds without permission, and have been less than ethical and honest with what this proposal actually does. Nick Speal even stated, “This is literally an affordable housing petition; housing costs are out of control and this is our way to contain them.”

We have numerous projects in the works for South Lake Tahoe. Phase I of the Sugar Pine village is nearly complete and applications are being accepted. The College has converted to offering 4-year degrees and is building dorms to help house 100 students while they attend classes.

The City should focus on reducing permit costs and red tape, so people can build, renovate and add additional square footage without a giant price tag for middle-class Tahoe.

For example, to add approximately 1000 square feet of living space to our home, without increasing the footprint, we are looking at $30k+ just in permits and fees before any work can even begin.

If you signed this petition because you were lied to, you have time to remove your name. I urge this community to vote NO on this petition should it qualify for the November ballot. The people pushing this vacancy tax still won’t qualify for a home in SLT or anywhere regardless of trying to dictate and tax the private property of others.

Definition of Communism: A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

You tell me if this tax is advocating class warfare…

In closing, we need to tell everyone we know to NOT SIGN the Vacancy Tax petition or vote NO should it make the November ballot. It is bad policy by a bad councilman who I believe sold the city of SLT voters a false bill of goods, to get elected.

- Justin Davis
South Lake Tahoe