| 06/03/2013 |
7581023 |
[No]
The last thing Newport should be doing is discouraging second home ownership. Non-resident owners contribute equally to the cost of Newport’s services while utilizing fewer of those services, benefiting Newport residents. A prime example is the costs of Newport’s schools. |
| 06/05/2013 |
7607639 |
[Yes]
A tax exemption would be a benefit to our year round residents. Too many homes are “dark” in the offseason, and while we don’t have to pay to educate children in those homes, having vacant homes is damaging the fabric of our community.
I’m not sure that seasonal ownership is a financial boon to anyone but the person who sells their house to someone who wants to live here for 10 weeks of the year. |
| 06/05/2013 |
7607714 |
[Yes]
If one wants a second home here they can afford a little more taxes…..most rent them out for Salve in winter |
| 06/05/2013 |
7607915 |
[Yes]
We should be encouraging year-round occupancy and building a stronger community around year-round people. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7610587 |
[Yes]
People who can afford a second home are not that worried about a slightly higher tax bill. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7610759 |
[Yes]
For those of us who live in Newport and this is our primary property, many of us are struggling with increase in taxes and utilities. Where else will we go? If Newport is a second property, and often an income property. As beautiful as Newport is, please make our stay in Newport more pleasant by adjusting the cost of our primary home here and discount our taxes. We keep the town beautiful and give a charm to the properties to encourage others to come here. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7610787 |
[Yes]
Might not make much difference to those who can afford a second home in Newport. How much of a differential? Perhaps the second tier could be those who own residential property as investment only, as multiple units stress the infrastructure and resources more than vacation owners. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7610965 |
[No]
There must be other ways of rewarding Newport’s legal, voting residents. How about free or reduced fee parking in some of the city’s lots? How about reduced beach rates? |
| 06/06/2013 |
7611821 |
[No]
I don’t think that would be fair. I also don’t think it’s fair that most condos seem to be taxed at a higher rate than single homes. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7616744 |
[No]
Our property taxes are relatively low as it is (as a percentage of home value). Permanent residents use more services, part-timers spend more money here that was earned somewhere else. That’s already well enough balanced in my mind. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7623705 |
[Yes]
Think proper residents should get a break over people who buy primarily for investment & rent – they are nit really a meaningful part of the neighborhood & sometimes affect the neighborhood in a negative manner |
| 06/06/2013 |
7625136 |
[Yes]
If 2nd home ownership declines, maybe then middle class families will be able to afford to live in Newport. |
| 06/06/2013 |
7631741 |
[No]
Discriminatory and unfair to those part time residents who generally use fewer services |
| 06/07/2013 |
7640100 |
[No]
Year-round residents use the services provided through property taxes more than 2nd home owners. I’d be happier if the city fined 2nd home owners for not shoveling their sidewalks when it snows. |
| 06/07/2013 |
7641274 |
[Yes]
Again, the locals put up with traffic and rude visitors, crowds etc and most of us do not profit from the huge influx of tourist. our life becomes more difficult in the summer. i dread tourist season. we should at least have a break on our taxes. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7656513 |
[No]
Pay the assessed taxes or stay out of the fray. This again would only enhance the rich. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7656815 |
[Yes]
Newport needs fewer second homes and more year round residents who are the backbone of a flourishing urban enviroment |
| 06/09/2013 |
7657054 |
[Yes]
Second homeowners may be taking up housing resources that the working class, middle-class need to remain in the city and contribute to the life of the community. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7657569 |
[Yes]
Even if you own 2or more homes in the city, you should get a local tax break on the home in which you reside, not the other(s). After all, you are making money on those other homes. Common sense. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7657693 |
[Yes]
or Homestead credit |
| 06/09/2013 |
7657822 |
[No]
First time hearing of this, but doesn’t that seem a little backward? The folks who are living here are using more resources than those who have the property as a second home. However, if you tie this to the previous question – could there be differences in taxation based on owner-occupied residences, part-time residences (not rented out while the owner is away), yearly rentals and short term rentals. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7657856 |
[Yes]
The problem is not out-of-town summer residents, but absentee landlords. My street is a mixture of resident and out-of-town owners. We residents have the year-round burden of maintaining our neighborhoods while struggling with issues such as parking. In my neighborhood, there are many multi-family dwellings without off-street parking (grandfathered). Their tenants hog the on-street parking places, and long-term (aging!) residents are pushed farther and farther away from their homes. The least we could get from the city would be a discount on our taxes without having to endure the humiliation of pleading poverty and old age. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7658152 |
[No]
We’re residents, but still, a two-tier system would be unfair. Plus, we use most of the resources. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7658208 |
[No]
Why discriminate? Ridiculous. Those with legal residence more than anyone should support local services and infrasructure. Odd idea. Water, crime, and schools…hello. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7659436 |
[No]
The last word in taxation without representation. The non-resident taxpayer with a second home vacant much of the year is far less of a burden on municipal infrastructure and public services than the full time resident landowner. |
| 06/09/2013 |
7659687 |
[Yes]
The city is in desperate need of year-around residents to support a more stable, robust, and multi dimensional economy. Perhaps a tax system that favors residents as opposed to second home owners is a solid, structural way to built that. The second home market drives up prices yet provides little else for the economy year-around. |
| 06/10/2013 |
7664441 |
[Yes]
Those who own a second home in Newport drive up the prices of homes making it harder for year around residents to find affordable places to live. |
| 06/10/2013 |
7666770 |
[No]
No tax discounts for ex military either |
| 06/10/2013 |
7667750 |
[Yes]
So many ordinances in Newport favor those who are second home owners. The town caters to tourism at the expense of year-round residents. Give year-rounders a break on at least one thing that will save them money and encourage goodwill that the city actually cares about its year-round residents. |
| 06/10/2013 |
7668441 |
[Yes]
We need to encourage year-round residency – and a preferred residents tax would help. People who choose Newport for a second home MIGHT be discouraged by a differential tax rate – but they choose Newport because they LOVE Newport, not because of a tax status. |
| 06/10/2013 |
7668946 |
[No]
would drive down house prices. if anything primary residences should pay more because they use more services!! consider a 1% “mansion tax” on property sales over $1 million! |
| 06/10/2013 |
7670416 |
[Yes]
Many of those that have a second home rent it out for high fees and the locals are left to deal with the issue as a result. |
It has been suggested by a City Council member that property taxpayers whose legal residence is in Newport receive a discount on their taxes. Opponents argue that such an arrangement would discourage second home ownership in Newport, which has been a financial boon to the city.