This commentary is by Kate Hughes. Kate and her husband, Ryan Becker, are educators who grew up in Bethel. They now live in Woodstock, where their son attends a thriving public school within the Mountain Views Supervisory Union.
As the Legislature grapples with the future of education funding and finance, it is time for Vermonters to demand that our legislators, and Gov. Phil Scott, make it a priority to tax second-home owners more. My family’s story illustrates why this matters.
My husband and I are lifelong Vermonters who chose to stay in Vermont and raise our young son here, largely because of the public school system. We’re also public educators trying to make a life without additional resources beyond the paychecks we earn. We own a house assessed at just over $300,000, a house that took 15 years of work, saving and sacrifice to buy.
Last year, primary residents in our community saw a property tax increase of $639.15 per $100,000 of property value, while non-residents saw an increase of $368.45 per $100,000 of value. If a non-resident owned our $300,000 house, their property tax bill would have increased by about $1,100. But because we live here full-time, we saw an increase of nearly $2,000. It’s hard to argue that’s fair or equitable.
In many Vermont communities, there is now a real cost to the high volume of second-home owners who have arrived in recent years. They buy up limited housing stock, raise home values, inflate grand lists and make it very difficult for Vermonters who want to live and work here — and send their kids to our schools — to find affordable housing. It also means there’s a shrinking number of primary residents left to shoulder the cost of essential services.
This disparity now happens in communities across Vermont. Our tax system increasingly privileges wealthier individuals who own multiple homes, rather than supporting low- and middle-income Vermonters trying to rent or own one. It’s a system that makes it difficult for families and workers to stay here, at a time when Vermont desperately needs them. Locals simply can’t compete.
There is little downside to taxing second-home owners more. Many will simply pay it, because they have the wealth to do so. Some may decide to sell, but our housing market makes clear there’s a long line of prospective second-home owners who will buy up those houses and pay whatever Vermont charges.
And for the rare houses that don’t sell quickly, the prices will moderate and return within reach of people who live, work and send their kids to school here. It’s a win in any scenario.
The landscape has changed, and Vermont needs to change its property tax classifications accordingly. Taxing second-home owners directly addresses many of our most pressing crises — a high rate of vacant homes, a profound housing shortage, a profound labor shortage, declining numbers of primary residents to pay for essential services and declining school enrollment.
Our property tax system needs to support Vermonters and incentivize the kinds of communities we want and need, now and into the future.
