Supporters say tax will support housing; critics aren’t so sure.
An initiative that would tax vacant homes with the goal of supporting long-term housing opportunities in Astoria will go to voters this November.
At a meeting Monday night, the Astoria City Council faced several options when it came to the citizen-led initiative, including adopting the initiative then and there, delaying discussion of the initiative to a future meeting or adding additional language to the initiative, a move that would have given voters two versions of the measure to choose between.
The councilors went with a fourth option: to allow the initiative to move forward to the Nov. 3 general election ballot as-is.
“We’re grateful to everyone who spoke in support of the measure [Monday],” Andy Kipp, one of the chief petitioners, told KMUN after the City Council meeting. “We look forward to continuing the conversation with Astoria voters and letting the community decide in November.”
The initiative gained 1,109 valid signatures from Astoria voters. Supporters say a tax on homes left intentionally vacant for much of the year is an important tool in building up options for year-round Astorians.
If the initiative passes, revenue generated by the tax will go into a city-controlled community housing fund. It is estimated the tax could generate nearly $1 million in revenue in its first year. But supporters hope a tax could also motivate some people to offer second homes as long-term rentals.
Critics, however, worried about unintended consequences and potential legal liability. Others doubted it would do much to increase housing stock in Astoria.
On Monday, one man referenced a situation where a family member had recently moved into assisted living and her house is now, technically, vacant. He said the rest of the family would struggle to pay the vacant homes tax if it passes in November.
Robert Lugg, who owns property in Astoria and said he hopes to move here full-time eventually, urged the council to consider why someone would leave a property idle.
“If you’re there to make money or you’re there to better yourself in some way, you’re not going to do that. The only people that would purposefully leave a property idle are the people that want to be here,” he said, and referenced his own situation.
Lugg said the tax feels punitive. He also wondered how the city would oversee the tax.
“How many employees do you need? How much money is really gained through this tax?” he asked.
Earlier, City Councilor Andy Davis had also expressed concerns about how the city might administer the tax.
Since the measure isn’t guaranteed to pass, Davis said, “It may not be a riddle we need to solve. But if it does pass … people don’t start paying this tax until 2028. I think it gives a window of opportunity for staff and the council and the public to work toward trying to figure out the wrinkles in administration before it hits the ground.”
The petitioners behind the measure estimate that around 300 houses in Astoria might meet the criteria of the tax. They and supporters noted there are exemptions for people who are renovating their homes or who face financial hardships, among other things.
Astoria resident Liz Harris said that many of the situations people referenced during public comment Monday night would qualify for an exemption.
She supported the tax going to voters and added that Astoria has always stood out to her as a coastal community that is still working class.
“There’s something ironic about the fact that working-class folks serving us, serving tourists and serving the folks who decide to come here for two weeks out of the year, keep the town’s economy alive but are the ones who actually can’t afford to live here,” she said.
Following Lugg, the fifth person to speak during the public comment period, Mayor Sean Fitzpatrick noted it was getting late.
He asked for a quick show of hands from the crowd gathered in-person and online to gauge support for the different options in front of the City Council. The majority signaled their preference that the initiative be sent to the November ballot.
The City Council continued to hear from people in the audience for around 30 more minutes before Fitzpatrick closed the public comment period and asked the City Council to deliberate and vote.
City Councilor Josh Conklin later critiqued Fitzpatrick’s approach to deciding who was given time to speak during public comment periods. Currently, the mayor asks people who want to speak to an item to raise their hands and then selects a speaker.
“I would like for us to look into a way to have a more transparent selection for public comment,” Conklin said. He advocated for a queue process, especially for people joining City Council meetings online.
Fitzpatrick pushed back.
“Generally I wouldn’t respond, but I want to make it clear I did my best to call on a wide variety of people and the comments that were made were varied,” he said. “When 46 hands go up between online and in the room, it’s hard to determine who was the actual first person.”
Addressing Conklin, he added, “If you would like in the future for me to call on you to determine who that person should be, I’m happy to do that. But otherwise I don’t mind doing my job up here.”
“It’s more about having a system in place that’s more transparent going forward,” Conklin replied. “There’s a new election coming up. It’s going to be a totally different mayor at some point. Things change and it should be transparent no matter who is up there.”
“I’ve been attending these meetings for 22 years and I have never felt there was any lack of transparency in how people were called on for public comment,” Fitzpatrick told Conklin.
Fitzpatrick recently announced he will not seek reelection in November.