Letters

The debate surrounding the new code that offers partial property exemptions to residents who renovate their historic homes [“Southampton Village Board Adopts Historic Home Rehabilitation Tax Exemption, 4-1,” 27east.com, February 26] seems to be based on either misunderstanding, misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation. Add in a bizarre aversion to a word choice, and the public is being denied the meaningful explanation this deserves.

It must be stressed that the new exemption does not inherently shift tax burdens from one group to another. Taxes on all stay the same. As The Press states in its editorial last week, “Other residents will not see their share of the tax levy go up when a property owner receives the exemption” [“Call It What It Is,” Editorial, March 6].

Unlike traditional exemptions, which remove existing taxable value from the tax rolls, this exemption would apply to new assessments that haven’t even been created yet. One of the goals of a code like this is to incentivize the renovation of historic structures, thus increasing the tax base, an increase that may not be realized without incentives.

If Trustee Ed Simioni and others believe that the only way to expand the tax base is through renovation then why wouldn’t they get behind a new code that encourages just that, even though the benefit may not be immediate? A failure to recognize that sometimes benefits don’t happen right away but materialize over time shows a complete lack of vision.

The idea that New York State created this law for communities to use as a perk for wealthy homeowners holds no water. To be clear, the new exemption phases in the increase in new assessed value over time — the first five years with no increase, then the last five years incrementally. Yes, that is called a deferment, since the requirement to pay taxes based on full value does not kick in for 10 years. Call it a delay, a waiver, a suspension or a deferral — it all adds up to the same thing: a straightforward approach to protecting historic properties and expanding the future tax base. Where’s the hidden agenda in that?

One last consideration is that any suggestion that the exemption is motivated by an effort to smooth over expansion of the historic district fails to consider a critical fact: The mayor and trustees have no authority in the expansion of a district. As per Chapter 65 of the village code, that rests solely with the Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation. It’s a bit stunning that local elected officials, current or former, and the press are unaware of this important fact.

Ultimately, it’s another code and another lost opportunity. Lost because, like in other instances, politics replaces substance, accusations replace accuracy, and conspiracy theories replace constructive dialogue.

Bill Manger

Mayor

Village of Southampton