You seem to be conveniently forgetting that whether or not occupied as a primary residence, that the owners ARE paying property taxes on the assessed value of those properties.
Property taxes are supposed to be on the “value” of the property,- so much per square foot being a typical way of comparing relative properties.
So, let’s take two identical properties built next to each other on a typical suburban street. Let’s say that homeowner A makes $100K a year, while homeowner B makes $100 million a year, and while homeowner A lives there but homeowner B lives out of state and just lives there in the summer.
Both pay income taxes federally, and potentially in the state where they are domiciled (and live more than 1/2 of the year). And keep in mind, - that when NOT there, their property taxes ARE still contributing to the upkeep of the city even while they are NOT wearing on the city. Not driving on the roads, etc.
Please justify in detail how what you, Mandami, and Hochul are pushing is legal, - or even justifiable.
Last edited:
