Urging Caution On Any Potential Increase Of The Residential Exemption

To the editor: The dispassionate description of the mechanics of the residential exemption in JohnCarl McGrady's article belies the fact that with an increase in the exemption, seasonal residents would be asked to carry a larger and disproportionate share of costs of turf fields and nursing home beds.

These projects in no way arise because Nantucket is a “seasonal community.” If you’re paving roads, installing sewers, hiring police, building a new dormitory, acquiring employee housing, fine. The seasonal population necessitates these while a smaller and less costly town wouldn’t need so many of them.

Today, based on filings by the Town and reports by the Massachusetts data analytics unit, year-round residents likely contribute 15 to 20 percent of all property taxes (residential and commercial together). Between 25 to 30 percent of our 12,000-plus residential parcels participate in the exemption. Offsetting the big ticket projects by upping the exemption smacks of spending other people’s money. Modifying the exemption year by year to accommodate big projects as has been suggested is a fantasy. We all know once the exemption goes up it won’t go down. That would be portrayed as a tax increase.

I side with Clifford Williams, that “[people] should feel the sting of it …” Shifting a greater portion of this kind of budget growth onto seasonal residents who cannot vote is wrong, regardless of the island notables who may support it. It’s not an even split today, but it’s what we have. ATM goers must accept both the benefits and cost of their votes.

Ken Gentner