I was party to a conversation recently in which a group of second-home owners refuted the viewpoint that Summit County’s economy is at least partially dependent on revenue from the short-term rental industry. To a person, they scoffed at the notion and declared that in the good old days the county got by just fine without such revenue. I think these are smart folks with good intentions, despite the NIMBYistic bent of their perspective. But I found their comments disingenuous in ignoring the reality that the economy of Summit County of the past isn’t comparable to the Summit County of the present. 

I’ve heard from plenty of longtime locals who remember a county that got by, sure — but often only just barely. Revenue was lacking, infrastructure needs were easy to put off and public services reflected it. The growth of ski resorts brought visitors and jobs, but for years the public costs of that growth outpaced what the county was able to collect in return. So, when folks wax nostalgic about how we “did just fine” back then, it’s worth remembering that getting by isn’t the same thing as being fiscally healthy. 

Wishful thinking can’t turn back time, and I don’t think we can build enough hotels to house all the people who now want to visit our corner of the world. Short-term rentals have become instrumental in helping to sustain the tourism levels that the county now depends on. The industry has also become the piggy bank that jurisdictions often raid as they seek revenue to address a myriad of issues, including critical needs as diverse as employee housing and road repairs. And short-term rentals guests spend millions at local businesses. Even so, it should go without saying that short-term rental owners need to play by the rules, including in following permitting regulations, submitting lodging and sales taxes and permitting fees to state and local jurisdictions and ensuring that their rentals adhere to Good Neighbor Guidelines. 

Despite the financial contributions from this industry, local jurisdictions still often come up short in the revenue needed to continue to provide services to locals, part-time residents and visitors alike. As such, lawmakers are starting to look elsewhere for options to address funding shortfalls. The state legislature, in its boundless creativity in figuring ways to get select segments of the population to pay for the societal needs of all, is debating just such a proposal: a vacancy tax. While details are sparse at this point, the gist of HB36 is that second homeowners should pay an extra tax on their homes if they stand vacant most of the time. The bill would allow local jurisdictions to ask voters if they can mandate that these folks contribute more to the sustainability of the communities they occasionally call home. I get it. While these homeowners already pay property taxes, just like short-term rental owners and locals do, it can be argued that beyond the occasional trip to the restaurant, hardware or grocery store their financial contributions to the county are minimal compared to short-term rental homeowners, let alone locals. 

The bill exempts short-term rental homes from this vacancy tax, however. Maybe that’s due to great lobbying or simply because it makes sense to not kill the goose laying golden eggs. There’s a part of me that can’t help thinking it’s about time that second-home owners who aren’t part of the short-term rental industry should be contributing more economically to the greater good as well. If this bill passes and when Summit County jurisdictions jump on the vacancy tax bandwagon, it’ll be interesting to see how eager the affected population will be to kick in more for maintaining this area we all love so much. Call me pessimistic, but I suspect that many will suddenly find themselves greatly concerned with government infringement on property rights even as they continue to advocate for restricting, if not outright banning, short-term rentals. And all the while locals will be laughing out loud at the sight of “rich people” fighting over who has to pay more in taxes. 

But I gotta admit I’m not a fan of this vacancy tax idea, in essence levying a sin tax on these homeowners because they have the wherewithal to buy a second house that sits empty most of the time. This notion of singling out certain groups, the sinners, to pay for essential services everyone benefits from, and then twisting ourselves into knots in order to justify it strikes me as odd. STR taxes fund childcare, marijuana taxes fund school construction and gambling taxes fund water infrastructure. As a participant in the short-term rental industry, I’ve been under the taxation gun for so long I’ve come to accept it as normal. But accepting it doesn’t mean I agree with it, or that others — even those eager to restrict short-term rentals —should have to endure the same thing.