Paying what it’s worth

To the editor:

With regard to the proposed Endangered Property Protection Program tax mentioned in the article “Green tech, open space and flood protection” in the September 21 issue of The River Reporter: $1 per $1,000 on realty transfers? Isn’t that a decimal too low, at least—can’t we afford $10 or $20 or $30 per thousand to go into a dedicated conservation fund to protect the natural beauty that the county is so famous for? Even two or three percent of a sales price is precious little to save so very much.

[The below is a response to Jeffrey Moore’s letter]

Don’t break the camel’s back

To the editor:

Unless you are going to exempt the first so-and-so many dollars of the sale of a house, the idea of increasing the proposed transfer tax would be a difficult sell. If you could find an affordable house in Sullivan for under $100,000, to add $1,000 to $3,000 to that for almost any reason would be a burden to residents trying to buy in that price range. Second-home buyers are a different group, but an exemption for the first, say, $100,000 (the exact amount would have to be determined) should be called for on the primary residence of a buyer. Beyond that, up to three percent might be acceptable. But you can’t hurt the working poor.