Letters

I applaud Trustee Ed Simioni [“Tax Illustration,” Letters, February 20] for his work on behalf of all village residents, providing transparency, context and insight into his own thinking as he asks important questions and expresses thoughtful, independent views. And kudos to David Rung [“Just Dumb?” Letters, February 20] for exposing structural iniquities in village assessments and taxation.

Unfortunately, both of their letters regarding the proposed partial tax abatement for qualified work on historic properties rely on one particular mirror, rather than the kaleidoscope combination of several mirrors that creates the full picture.

To illustrate another mirror: Imagine a hypothetical based on current village practice — an owner of a historic property, in the spirit of stewardship and responsibility imposed by the historic district — and often as a requirement imposed by the village — performs $100,000 of recommended historic preservation work along with $100,000 of discretionary work.

As a “reward” for doing the right (or required) preservation work, that homeowner currently sees her assessment increased by $200,000, thus raising her taxes and lowering her neighbor’s. So, current tax practice punishes her, relative to neighbors, for maintaining and even enhancing the historic nature of her home, which the code acknowledges is of benefit to all residents.

Either the homeowner is punished when she does this work, or she chooses not to do it at all, placing the historic resource at greater risk of deterioration.

All the proposed law does is postpone the portion of her new assessed value related to the historic preservation work. Her assessment will still rise based on the $100,000 of discretionary work, and she will still see her taxes rise. But the additional tax burden will be abated for five years and then phased in over five years. Over time, she will pay taxes on all $200,000 of work.

This temporary benefit should be seen for what it is: a recognition of the burdens placed on homeowners who live in the historic district. Why should they receive this benefit? Perhaps in order to partially offset higher costs imposed on them — or the loss of value caused by inclusion in the historic district.

Why should the village oblige? Perhaps because the code promised it would.

The law enacting the historic district in 1986 provides eight goals in its statement of intent. Seven of these goals benefit all residents, at the sole expense of district residents; these have been pursued consistently. Only one of these goals, “To promote and encourage continued private ownership and stewardship of historic structures,” acknowledges any obligation to those carrying the burden of the historic district — and for nearly 40 years it has been ignored.

The proposed legislation is a small and overdue step toward fulfilling the village’s initial promise to encourage ownership and stewardship of historic homes.

Rob Coburn

Southampton Village