By Peter Strauss

Two weeks ago, John Hart forcefully urged the residential tax exemption here, acknowledging cons without identifying them. Let me, also a full-time resident with a high assessment, suggest what they are — at root, relieving full-time residents able to pay their taxes from fully supporting Stockbridge, and disproportionately burdening all second homeowners. rich and poor. Not all second homeowners are rich.

Alternative programs already exist that can help residents having difficulty paying real estate taxes. And rising Stockbridge real estate assessments have kept our tax rate low, since higher net assessments permit lower taxes to produce the revenue that will meet the town needs. Compared to other Berkshire communities, our tax rates are low. Our tax rates would have been much higher had our assessments not risen.

The RTE lacks an income cap limiting its availability to the needy. Their real estate valuations, on the whole, will be lower than those applicable to land owned by the financially comfortable. Thus, a cap would result in a much smaller revenue shortfall for the rest of us to make up by paying a somewhat higher tax rate. Financially capable residents would then fully share in supporting the town. Full year residents benefit more from the town’s services than second homeowners, not all of whom can comfortably pay their real estate taxes.

Because RTE lacks an income cap, the lion’s share of RTE benefits would go to financially capable full-time residents. A much larger shortfall in tax revenue would result, requiring a significantly higher tax hike. Why should the financially able be freed from fully sharing the town’s needs? Hart’s RTE argument is basically selfish, and its unfairness to second home- owners – rich and poor – is clear. Let us, rather, seek changes that would permit an RTE income cap.