A local lodging tax makes perfect sense because Bar Harbor and many other tourist towns in Maine incur the costs of providing for and maintaining the larger infrastructure, including first responders, which are all needed to serve the large number of tourists, which can more than triple the population of these towns three seasons each year. The costs are mostly borne by each town's property owners.
The state benefits from the lodging and sales taxes currently paid by the tourists, but the state returns a pittance of the funds needed to adequately cover the costs each of these towns incurs to serve the tourists. Increasing property taxes will only drive out year-round residents. As that continues, Bar Harbor will become further commercialized and less livable, and if that continues, will the town eventually have no year-round families? Will the new elementary school be closed or be turned into another hotel? Will Bar Harbor not be a town, but instead Disneyland of New England?
A local lodging tax of 2 percent would hardly deter tourists. Double it and it would not deter tourists. Bar Harbor, MDI, Trenton, Ellsworth, Hancock County, offer a unique opportunity and experience: access to Acadia National Park.
Why would a local lodging tax not be applicable to other Mainers who travel as tourists to Bar Harbor or other tourist towns? Is not the purpose of a local lodging tax to defer some of the costs town property owners bear to provide for the infrastructure and first responders needed to keep all tourists (no matter where they come from) comfortable and safe?
What is this nonsense assertion about a local lodging tax creating a greater division between haves and have-not communities? The local lodging tax is intended to help cover the costs of the impact of tourists. A town that does not triple its population June through September does not need a water system, sewer system, trash disposal, traffic control, police department or fire department large enough to to provide for the impacts of such large numbers of tourists for three seasons. But Bar Harbor and other tourist destinations do.
The alternative is for Bar Harbor and other tourist destinations to reach a saturation point where the towns fail because they can no longer subsidize the costs of tourists from their property taxes. Could they go into default? Could water and sewer systems fail because the towns can't afford maintenance? How about cutting the police and fire department expenditures? Would tourists come if they can't shower or they don't feel safe? What would that portend for Maine State revenues?
Let's not let that happen. All Maine residents and representatives of Mainers, need to recognize that the purpose of a local lodging tax is to help cover the impact of tourism on a town's infrastructure and budget, that it is to ease the burden on property taxes which allows Mainers to stay in their homes, that it is needed to help preserve a town's year-round community and livability; not turn a town into some abstract land of "haves."
It is wonderful to see businesses and politicians getting together for frank discussions. Citizens, especially property owners and parents of school children should be part of those discussions.
I did not read the text of Friedman's bill, but all must understand that it will be amended before it passes, if it passes. For example, the state is trying to make up for the revenues lost pursuant to the decline of federal support for the Covid emergency, plus whatever Trump and Musk have in mind. Friedmann's 90% for the town might become 10% for the town.
Aren't the cruise ship and parking revenues required to be spent on benefits to cruise ship passengers and users of the downtown area's streets and sidewalks? On what would the lodging tax revenue be spent? It might be a good idea to use the revenue to ensure that there is sufficient funding to hire and support first responders and those who regulate and inspect lodgings.
Then there is the issue of tourism's impact on the rest of MDI and Hancock county. Should they get a share of the revenue, or should the tax apply to lodgings in those areas as well. Agreed that more must be done to tax visitors, and the lodging tax is one way to do that. Are there other ways as well?
Does not Jax pay for its water and sewer service? Why is that an issue?
First, current state lodging tax is 9%, well above sales tax. Adding to it may depreciate future tourism. Though that might not necessarily be a negative.
The second concern I have is who controls the allocation of funds. I am still waiting for the additional parking solutions that were suppose to be created from the meters. The way the parking meter funds have been used has eroded trust in the community.
A local lodging tax makes perfect sense because Bar Harbor and many other tourist towns in Maine incur the costs of providing for and maintaining the larger infrastructure, including first responders, which are all needed to serve the large number of tourists, which can more than triple the population of these towns three seasons each year. The costs are mostly borne by each town's property owners.
The state benefits from the lodging and sales taxes currently paid by the tourists, but the state returns a pittance of the funds needed to adequately cover the costs each of these towns incurs to serve the tourists. Increasing property taxes will only drive out year-round residents. As that continues, Bar Harbor will become further commercialized and less livable, and if that continues, will the town eventually have no year-round families? Will the new elementary school be closed or be turned into another hotel? Will Bar Harbor not be a town, but instead Disneyland of New England?
A local lodging tax of 2 percent would hardly deter tourists. Double it and it would not deter tourists. Bar Harbor, MDI, Trenton, Ellsworth, Hancock County, offer a unique opportunity and experience: access to Acadia National Park.
Why would a local lodging tax not be applicable to other Mainers who travel as tourists to Bar Harbor or other tourist towns? Is not the purpose of a local lodging tax to defer some of the costs town property owners bear to provide for the infrastructure and first responders needed to keep all tourists (no matter where they come from) comfortable and safe?
What is this nonsense assertion about a local lodging tax creating a greater division between haves and have-not communities? The local lodging tax is intended to help cover the costs of the impact of tourists. A town that does not triple its population June through September does not need a water system, sewer system, trash disposal, traffic control, police department or fire department large enough to to provide for the impacts of such large numbers of tourists for three seasons. But Bar Harbor and other tourist destinations do.
The alternative is for Bar Harbor and other tourist destinations to reach a saturation point where the towns fail because they can no longer subsidize the costs of tourists from their property taxes. Could they go into default? Could water and sewer systems fail because the towns can't afford maintenance? How about cutting the police and fire department expenditures? Would tourists come if they can't shower or they don't feel safe? What would that portend for Maine State revenues?
Let's not let that happen. All Maine residents and representatives of Mainers, need to recognize that the purpose of a local lodging tax is to help cover the impact of tourism on a town's infrastructure and budget, that it is to ease the burden on property taxes which allows Mainers to stay in their homes, that it is needed to help preserve a town's year-round community and livability; not turn a town into some abstract land of "haves."
It is wonderful to see businesses and politicians getting together for frank discussions. Citizens, especially property owners and parents of school children should be part of those discussions.
I did not read the text of Friedman's bill, but all must understand that it will be amended before it passes, if it passes. For example, the state is trying to make up for the revenues lost pursuant to the decline of federal support for the Covid emergency, plus whatever Trump and Musk have in mind. Friedmann's 90% for the town might become 10% for the town.
Aren't the cruise ship and parking revenues required to be spent on benefits to cruise ship passengers and users of the downtown area's streets and sidewalks? On what would the lodging tax revenue be spent? It might be a good idea to use the revenue to ensure that there is sufficient funding to hire and support first responders and those who regulate and inspect lodgings.
Then there is the issue of tourism's impact on the rest of MDI and Hancock county. Should they get a share of the revenue, or should the tax apply to lodgings in those areas as well. Agreed that more must be done to tax visitors, and the lodging tax is one way to do that. Are there other ways as well?
Does not Jax pay for its water and sewer service? Why is that an issue?
I have 2 concerns with additional lodging tax.
First, current state lodging tax is 9%, well above sales tax. Adding to it may depreciate future tourism. Though that might not necessarily be a negative.
The second concern I have is who controls the allocation of funds. I am still waiting for the additional parking solutions that were suppose to be created from the meters. The way the parking meter funds have been used has eroded trust in the community.