Editor,
I feel lucky to live in the City of Sonoma. Mine is a wonderful single-family home neighborhood, only a mile from the Plaza, close to schools, parks, and bike paths; it’s been a great place to raise my family. However, when I lie in bed at night with the windows open, it’s eerily quiet. This is because both of the houses on either side of mine are second homes which are empty nearly all the time. I know I should feel lucky that I don’t have to hear neighbors’ noises or cars, but the situation seems strange to me. Why would these folks own houses (one of which is worth well over $1 million) that they only visit a few weekends a year?
This is why I was glad to read the article about Vacancy Tax recently in the Sonoma Valley Sun. If a homeowner can afford a house they don’t need to live in, they can surely afford the additional taxes. We need housing for people who live, work, and have families in Sonoma, not vacation homes. I urge the Sonoma City Council to enact a Vacancy Tax, and to use this extra revenue to build more workforce housing. The the owners of the 11.8% of the homes in Sonoma that are vacant owe it to Sonoma’s full-time residents to make up for the hardships experienced by local workers who can’t afford to live here.
Sincerely,
Matt Metzler, Sonoma
There are more vacant vacation homes than full time residents on my street. I am a lonely neighbor
Our neighborhood is exactly the same. Among 20 houses, 3 are empty most of the time. It seems we don’t have a housing shortage, we have rich man’s problems.
Do these vacant house homeowners pay property taxes? Or do they get a discount because they don’t live here full time?
Do these vacant house homeowners consume the same amount of city services every day that a full time homeowner does?
Do these vacant house homeowners pay sales taxes when they consume products and services when they are here?
Does Sonoma have a simplified process and regulations for building new homes? Would more affordable homes be available if more homes were built?