Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mercier
"(5) Properties that are not habitable during the winter months due to lack of
winterization, such as the absence of adequate heating, insulation, or plumbing designed for sub
freezing temperatures, as certified by the owner or a qualified inspector."
The proposed amendment covers that.
|
I appreciate that clarification. Doesn’t much change my thoughts about the breadth of the injury long term (how could I justify investing in this community and building a second home on that land, which we have been contemplating, if such a proposal were to become law?). I suppose the main issue for me is that the size of the proposed increase is absurdly large - essentially a penalty rather than a homestead exemption- and would negatively impact much of the waterfront property in the Lakes Region. Others will have different opinions, of course, and I concede I have not fully studied the matter. In its current form, it does seem targeted more to puffery than to a proposal intended to be enacted.