||| FROM HILARY CANTY |||
The Land Bank real estate excise tax (REET) is up for renewal and will be on the ballot this Fall. The Orcas Island Community Foundation Board is endorsing continuing this REET, as it provides funding to the Land Bank for preservation and conservation of land throughout the islands. On Orcas they steward Turtle Back, Coho, and soon to be open North Shore Preserve, among many others. The Land Bank staff works in concert with the San Juan Preservation Trust and a legion of volunteers to maintain trails, mitigate invasive species, and manage the public lands under conservation.
Additionally, San Juan County has a Housing Fund REET, providing funding for affordable housing. This REET was established in 2018 and has supported April’s Grove neighborhood and the Northern Heights Apartments on Orcas, as well as projects throughout the County. The housing REET is only available to counties that have already adopted a Land Bank REET. If the Land Bank REET renewal fails, we will lose both the Land Bank and affordable housing funding.
Open space and affordable housing are key elements of a healthy community. Maintaining the REET is a great step towards ensuring the islands remain a wonderful place to live for all islanders. To learn more about renewal, go to https://www.renewourlandbank.
The Matching campaign for the Senior Center Building purchase is going strong! We have raised $30,000 of the $50,000 goal. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far!
There is still time to donate online at www.oicf.us or drop a check off at the OICF office or Senior Center.
This weekend is Market Days at the Episcopal Church, a great treasure sale, from 10-2. It’s like Christmas in July! The Funhouse Gala on Sunday is sold out but you can still support them through the silent auction here.
I hope you are enjoying these lovely summer days.
The question is, does the Land Bank tax do more harm than good for affordable housing? One percent on every real estate transaction may not seem like much but it adds up to a whole lot of money over time. Affordability is obviously negatively influenced by this tax. On the other hand, the tax revenue is used to fund affordable housing projects (AND to pay administrator’s salaries; a necessary aspect of these projects). So, at the end of the day, do the benefits from the Land Bank tax outweigh the costs? Or the other way around?
My view is the Land Bank tax has been useful up to this point. Going forward I’m not so sure. Perhaps the tax could be reduced to provide a maintenance budget for the existing Land Bank properties? Or perhaps there should be an exception to the tax for properties deemed “affordable”; meaning below a certain price threshold? Or maybe there should be a graduated tax that increases dramatically when the property is clearly in the “luxury” zone? What do you think of 0% up to $1M, 2% up to $2M and $3% over that? That puts the burden directly upon those who can afford it most easily and removes the burden from those who can least afford it. There is still the undeniable point that every acre that is “preserved”, whether through easements or outright public purchase, decreases the amount of property available and thus increases the price on the remaining un-preserved property. Perhaps this is not a big issue, but it’s not nothing either.
Affordability is a complex topic and any solutions we contrive also have to be complex. There are no easy answers and simply renewing the Land Bank tax blindly, without discussing it’s intended AND unintended effects is surely unwise. You think the Land Bank Tax is great? Well, good! But perhaps it can be made better? More fair? More in-line with ALL of our community’s needs? You hate the Land Bank Tax? Well, fine! Perhaps there are ways to reduce it? Perhaps there are ways to make it less bad and more in-line with ALL of our community’s needs?
Ken, we had that with graduated automobile tab; people paid by value of the car. It was fair for all. The well monied and Tim Eyman managed to pull a sleight-of-hand that had the poor paying the MOST for tabs while the richest folks with their tin can or plastic cars pay $30 a year. (I pay $78 because Eyman’s second initiative taxed by weight, and my car is steel.
What is to stop the same thing becoming of the REET? I love the idea of graduated taxes – I think it’s only fair. It’s why I loathe the idea of flat tax because 10 % to a billionaire is a whole lot of money but it is not going to make a difference. A 10% tax on someone making $10 K a year will make it hard for them to make even the most basic ends meet. Unfortunately, the ones with the most money and power seem to manage to turn graduated taxes around, and they are the ones who can hire lawyers, threaten lawsuit, even change laws in their favor so that the burdens all fall on the backs of the middle class, which is being destroyed by tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and has made us 600 new billionaires during the pandemic!
I would like to see the Land Bank preserve more Critical Areas in our Urban Growth Areas. Why should we be burdened with all the sprawl. Here in Eastsound we had the most diverse forested lands and wetlands on the island. So yes to graduated tax and more valuing of existing diverse ecosystems, no matter the slated land uses (if they happen to fall in a UGA because it’s flat and people want to build on it, for instance.)
What would you like to see, Ken? I think when you start out with these questions, it stimulates us to think of things we might want. It might be good to lead by example of what you would like to see happen and what you think doesn’t work. I like the idea of addressing ALL the community’s needs because my long years here have shown me that the wishes and needs for quality of life (for more than just us humans) and healthy ecosystems are important – and we are tired of seeing those pushed aside in favor of economic growth and a sole tourism economy. Thanks for starting the conversation.