| Position Statement |
|
|
|
| Written by YatesOUCHtax Steering Committee | |
| Sunday, 10 February 2008 | |
|
Regarding: Yates County Occupancy Tax Executive Summary This Position Statement reflects the views of certain property owners and other interested parties in Yates County who have been newly burdened with a 4% occupancy tax on any rental of their properties. This Position Statement is an objection to such occupancy tax and sets forth some of the reasons for such objection. In brief, the objections include but are not limited to: In addition, questions regarding complex interpretation and impractical implementation of the new occupancy tax law, which is not in “Plain English,” are raised, including the hidden threat of extending even to properties not rented per se, if a nebulous “consideration” has been or may be received, and the unexplained, favorable treatment of campgrounds which also compete with cottages, for example. Furthermore, 16 specific suggestions are set forth, including but not limited to recommended non-applicability to owners of 3 rental units or fewer (as in Ontario County) or, if such tax remains operational, then decriminalization of violations, reduction in fines by a factor of 10, plus extending the reporting obligation to campgrounds as well. Moreover, this Position Statement also sets forth numerous requests under Freedom of Information, including but not limited to whether or not New York State was properly informed that a permission they enacted for a hotel and motel occupancy tax in Yates County would also be used against private property owners and cottage renters, and whether or not the Yates County Occupancy Tax faithfully follows NYS authorization. This Position Statement may be amended from time to time, including adding additional signatories. Regarding: Yates County Occupancy Tax Introduction: Human relationships, civil peace and consideration for the common good depend upon an innate sense of fairness and trust, both real and perceived. The recent, unexpected enactment of a 4% Yates County Occupancy Tax violates even the most rudimentary sense of fairness, and pre-empts the possibility of engendering trust in local government, unless remedied. Surprise! Happy Holidays: Property owners received in the mail, about two weeks before Christmas and about three weeks before the next round of burdensome property tax bills would be mailed, a completely unanticipated notice that Yates County was levying a further tax -- an occupancy tax on property owners who rent their properties for “less than 29 days.” (This is not 29 days in total; it seems to refer to the period of each rental.) Apparently the county had no trouble finding our addresses to send us such notice, so why couldn’t they notify us that these matters were even under consideration? Was it to avoid reasonable and sound input? Was it to short-circuit the ability of property owners to even communicate their concerns to each other? Was it lack of respect for that portion of the population which is already excessively burdened by outrageously high taxes, and trying to make ends meet by renting out? Is an Occupancy Tax going to become an “OUCH-pancy Tax”? One of the most illogical defenses verbalized of the Occupancy Tax is that it “won’t cost the property owner anything, it is renters who will have to pay the tax.” Oh, really? And who is being burdened with the paperwork of processing and remitting the tax? With keeping records? Taking on the liability and risk of $1000 fine and/or a year in jail for an error in collecting the tax? Whose property is being disadvantaged by having to charge an occupancy tax when other properties being rented on the SAME lake don’t have to collect such a tax? If one of the people who voted for this occupancy tax was renting equivalent properties, with one property charging an occupancy tax and one not obligated to collect, guess which property that person would likely choose to rent? Ouch! Some of us have ALREADY experienced the “turn off” and “turn down” of potential renters due to this Occupancy Tax. Impact on Property Values is Inevitable: The value of properties bearing such a tax which will lose rentals will thus have property values depressed. But will we see that correction in our assessed valuation? It seems doubtful. Certainly, a purchaser of property for rental investment would be more likely to buy a property which doesn’t carry the burden of collecting an Occupancy Tax. Isn’t this logical? Why would any legislative body with the good of its citizens and community in mind do this to the property owners in its district? Who Owns these Rental Cottages? Not motel and hotel corporations; that’s for sure. We don’t believe, as the signatories to this position statement, that we are any different from most of our neighbors on South Lake Road, on Canandaigua Lake in Middlesex. And we don’t believe that we are much different from property owners on Seneca and Keuka Lakes, who are being impacted by this same Occupancy Tax. Like many others, we struggle to pay our taxes, and so do they. We want to have a peaceful enjoyment of our properties, and so do they. We want to “make ends meet” so we can keep our homes, and so do they. We hope that what is best about the natural beauty of the lakes will be preserved, and so do they. But to pay these school and county property taxes, some of us have to give up our own time on the lake, and rent out our properties in the summer, negatively impacting our original desire to enjoy our own properties. AND, while renting during the prime summer months of July and August may defray taxes, most of our signatories can honestly say that we don’t make a profit on these properties; rather, we lose, every single year. Members of government not living on the lake can comment about how high the rentals are, maybe $1000 - $5000 per week, and consider us targets for getting more revenue out of us, but consider that there are weeks that aren’t rented at all, that it is a very short season. Consider rental commissions and fees and legal expense to draw leases, consider what wear and tear requires in repair, what insurance costs, cleaning, garbage collection, gardening and lawn care, utilities, and of course – worst of all – the property taxes! The Occupancy Tax for just 10 weeks could add another $400 to $2000 to our expenses, per year, plus the cost of administering the paperwork, and then more lost rentals because tenants will choose to rent where no such Occupancy Tax is charged (about ¾ of the Canandaigua Lake properties, for example.) Furthermore, the taxes are principally assessed by the lake footage, but the rental prices are based more on the “living quarters.” Hence, property taxes have little proportion to rental prices, and the simplest cottages have the greatest disadvantage, on equivalent shoreline to larger, fancier houses. The Occupancy Tax will be the same 4% for each. Poor Long-Term Prognosis: Those who don’t currently rent out their properties are likely to find out that in the next 5-10 years they will have to rent in order to pay the ever-escalating taxes, or move away. And they do need to go somewhere else when renters are using their property, incurring that expense too. Retirees will be forced “off-lake” and young couples will find it increasingly difficult to even own property on the lake like their parents or grandparents did, unless in high-rise condo space. They are blind who cannot see that the situation which is evolving, created in part by such thoughtless and burdensome taxing, will be more and more “corporate” ownership, developments and sale of properties to out-of-town affluent executives building McMansions, leading to tight clusters and even high-rise, crowding and pollution, and damage to the environment. The seeds of this future are being planted today by government seeking short term revenue at the risk of the long term demise of an irreplaceable resource. Instead of being stewards for the future, government is acting like any opportunist for a few more dollars of tax money NOW. And, worse, they risk pitting neighbor against neighbor, because as long as it is “happening to someone else” maybe they are “leaving me alone.” The Occupancy Tax is one more nail in the coffin of those who have been trying to keep alive the possibility of private home ownership on the lakes, supplemented by some rental to pay the bills. If everyone can’t rally around an issue such as this, then don’t be surprised when large tracts of land and beachfront are sold to developers. Inappropriateness of an Occupancy Tax for Private Property: It is one thing to force a corporate hotel/motel chain to collect Occupancy Tax; they have staff to do the paperwork, lawyers to interpret the law for them, salaried employees to do the cleaning and serving, and they leverage their grounds expenses over many guests. That is simply not the case with folks trying to rent their cottages for a few weeks to help pay taxes. And, threatening them with $1000 fine and/or a year in jail shows how mean-spirited the current occupancy tax law seems to be. The Occupancy Tax should not be levied against individual properties. Ontario County has realized this by limiting their 3% Occupancy Tax to facilities of more than 3 rentable units. Hence, virtually all the Ontario County cottage rentals are unaffected by an Occupancy Tax, and these places are the unfair competition for our cottage rentals on Canandaigua Lake, in Yates County. Four Years to Enact a Bad Idea? One legislator tried to defend this negligence to inform property owners in advance by saying that it “had been under consideration for four years,” implying we “should have known.” Well, if it really was under consideration for four years, perhaps that is because it was a bad idea four years ago, continued to be a bad idea, and is still a bad idea. Time doesn’t make spoiled fruit sweeter. The Camel’s Nose is in the Tent: With such interference and imposed burdens by government, can anyone doubt that this is just the first round in beginning more regulation of individual properties? The law requires a Certificate to be prominently posted in the properties which must collect an occupancy tax. What is next? Regular white glove inspections? Monthly water and radon testing? Railings everywhere? Paved parking areas? Industrial quality carpeting? Poison Ivy removal? Fire drills? Background checks on tenants? Naming the town as a co-insured on policies? When will it stop? Let it be here. Let it be now. It seems clear that this Occupancy Tax is just the first and very intrusive step into our lives and into our peaceful enjoyment of our properties. Egregious Highlights of the Occupancy Tax Law for Consideration: On the surface, those not affected by this 17 page law might think it is just a money matter, but it is far more. Here are some considerations which might not be obvious to those who haven’t read the law, and some questions raised in the minds of those exposed to these matters for the first time, and without experience, like most of us who have signed below. Unsuspecting property owners may find themselves affected and even fined or jailed for unknowingly not complying. Some alternatives are proposed: Half of the funds collected are supposed to go to Yates County Tourism. Here’s what we know about some local use of tourism dollars: Jessica Heeman of Dundee admitted to taking $54,000 from the Finger Lakes Tourism Alliance, where she was manager. She is reported to have admitted using the funds to pay off personal balances on her credit cards. She received 28 days in the Yates County Jail to be served on weekends, 60 days of electronic monitoring and 300 hours of community service. Her former responsibilities are now being done by a bookkeeper/contractor. No mention was made in the article of what is being done to protect tourism dollars in the future. (Ref: Canandaigua Messenger.) This story certainly doesn’t inspire trust and confidence in the oversight associated with the handling of tourism dollars. Bottom Line: Does this Occupancy Tax law sound like the kind of law that Yates County should be targeting against its tax-paying individual property owners? One alternative to consider is for those property owners on Canandaigua Lake to begin a drive to break away from Yates County and seek a way to be part of Ontario County where homeowners and others who have to rent to make ends meet not only aren’t threatened with criminal penalties, but don’t even have to pay an Occupancy Tax. It’s an idea, but how will that help other property owners throughout the county? There are other questions, like whether or not sufficient notice was given to us (24 days?), whether the form under which the notice was delivered was in the correct legal format, whether it appropriately takes into account the language which should be used with consumers, what is the basis for 4%, what is the state’s jurisdiction, and is this just an entry tax to be raised, what are the limits, and much more. But why quibble for the moment on such details when the unfairness looms larger than all the other matters, with significant impact on our competitiveness versus Ontario County cottage rentals. What will it take for the County Legislature to re-examine the issues and reconsider the tax on individual properties? We had no chance for input; so this is now our input. Freedom of Information Requests: Under Freedom of Information, we the undersigned will be separately requesting all the minutes and proceedings, research and analysis (including financial projections) of every Yates County government organization related in any way to this proposed or enacted occupancy tax, for the last 5 years. We are requesting copies of all input and/or objections to such Occupancy Tax that have been communicated to any Yates County government organization, including from commercial renting enterprises. We are asking for a list of everyone to whom the notice of such Occupancy Tax has been mailed, and a list of all who return the registration cards. We are asking for copies of all notices which have been placed in any newspaper or other public communications vehicle, and the date placed. And we are asking for how each legislator voted on this matter, and on all previous votes on this matter, and if they personally are renting out property, and if they will be subject to this tax. Furthermore, we are asking for copies of all correspondence between the Town of Middlesex boards and elected officials and Yates County boards and elected officials on these matters, and also between Yates County boards and elected officials and New York State legislators and/or the State Senate and/or State Assembly. In particular, we ask for copies of all information relating to whether or not any Yates County board or elected official disclosed, and also to what extent if any there was such disclosure, to New York State that the tax they were asked to approve would also be applied to individual homeowners, cottages and small rental properties. This is for a start. We feel that what is being done to us and to many, many others is so wrong, that we cannot help but protest. Fortunately the right to protest does not seem to have been taken away by this legislation. However, we first ask that the relevant government bodies reconsider what they have done, and its negative impact on individuals, retirees, families, and on the financial competitiveness of Yates County cottage rentals in particular. A Request for the County Legislature to Reconsider: Hopefully, at least some of the above will convince those involved, those not yet involved, and those who perpetrated this Occupancy Tax to come together in reconsideration of whether this tax and terms makes any sense for an individual property owner, whether it appropriately serves Yates County property owners. Here are some of the ideas we hope will be considered, although we might have more if the law had been in plain English for the average property owner to understand. We recommend and urge: We sincerely hope that the Yates County Legislature will consider all of these suggestions. Of course, everyone should seek his or her own legal advice, which naturally creates a boon for attorneys, unless we can do so as a group. Most of us aren’t attorneys, nor are we trying to give anyone legal advice, we are just trying to bring public attention to such a serious matter, and we ask the Yates County Legislature to repeal a poorly considered and offensive tax. We hope that other property owners will consider these matters to be so serious and intrusive that they will join with us in petition, including those who have not yet been impacted but have the vision to see the writing on the wall. We specifically ask all members of the Middlesex Town Board to support our position to the Yates County Legislature, or to set forth reasons why they do not support the essence of this position statement. Supporters of this Position Statement: Dr. Jerid Fisher Diane Harris Richard and Anne Testa Carol Eckberg Philip C. and Mary Lou B. Kron Rick and Mary Bolton Sue Sage Carol Hankin Walt and Joanne Drewno Betty Herriott |
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 20 February 2008 ) |
| Next > |
|---|
