I must respond to Ron Whalen’s deceptive Sept. 27 letter and voter pamphlet essay that purposely muddy the water regarding renewal of our Conservation Land Bank.
First, the current 1% land bank real estate excise tax collection – unless renewed by voters – will end at the close of 2026. The 0.5% affordable housing tax collection is currently voter authorized until the end of 2030. But the state authorization allowing us to collect the housing tax ends with the sunset of the land bank tax if it fails voter approval. Both are in different 12-year cycles requiring majority voter approval.
Reality. When Lincoln Borman was asked the question mentioned by Whalen in a March 2024 meeting, he responded professionally and accurately given that the Prosecuting Attorney’s office had been asked, but had not yet clarified, the exact fate of the affordable housing REET if this land bank renewal is voted down. It was indeed “open for debate” and a pivotal legal opinion was in the offing.
Later in the summer PA senior staff verbally clarified that state law required the continuance of the land bank REET at 1% to enable continued collection the affordable housing REET. If this third renewal is voted down then the authorization of the land bank REET collection does sunset at midnight on December 31, 2026, thereby simultaneously preventing further collection of the housing REET.
At the close of 2026 the conservation of land bank parcels would go into a stripped-down maintenance mode but the Home Fund would effectively dry up (including giving up 3 grant dollars for every tax dollar!) without further REET revenue. This outcome would be a disastrous, double-barreled self-inflicted wound to our island communities.
Both REETs are wonderfully unique to San Juan County and elegantly use the problem to help pay for solutions. The “for statement” in the Voter’s pamphlet is factual, the “against statement” is untethered and tries the old subterfuge of wrongly pointing to weak correlation as evidence of strong causation. It is absurd to conclude that the island of Nantucket’s terrible up-scale popularity, closeness to huge urban areas and over-heated real estate valuations are caused by their land bank program. Prescient residents here wisely incorporated the land bank idea in 1990, just like Nantucket earlier, to somewhat regulate and balance the capitalist, speculative land rush in the hopes of preserving a special place for residents.
These small taxes that thousands of us have gladly paid in purchasing property, fortify key elements of our socio-economic base, that along with small business/tech startups relocating to take advantage of our healthy lifeways and bucolic surroundings, will eventually significantly expand our workforce, tax base and island-circulating dollars.
Whalen is out to lunch to imply that these unique REETs can be easily tweaked and separated in state law at the fall of the axe in 2026. Please carefully consider the ramifications and vote YES on Proposition 1.
Steve Ulvi,
San Juan Island
Steve Ulvi,
San Juan Island
