The select board voted Wednesday to increase the exemption from 5 per cent to 30 per cent in order to help year-round residents.
West Tisbury raised its residential tax exemption from 5 per cent to 30 per cent at the fiscal year 2026 tax classification hearing on Wednesday.
The select board approved the increase in a unanimous vote, saying it wanted to make it easier for people who live on the Island year-round.
Residential tax exemptions are allowed under state law, and Tisbury and Oak Bluffs have similar exemptions. The exemption lowers property taxes for homeowners who call West Tisbury their primary residence and shifts some of that burden to those who own seasonal residences in town.
West Tisbury first enacted the exemption last year after a robust public back and forth on the issue. Last year, the tax rate was $4.53 per $1,000 for residential class properties and $4.47 for commercial, industrial and personal property, according to the town's principal assessor MacGregor Anderson.
For fiscal year 2026, it is estimated that the rate will be $5.22 per $1,000 for residential class properties and $4.75 per for commercial, industrial and personal property.
Residential homeowners would have around $585,000 taken off their assessed property value before taxes are calculated. About 700 households qualify for this exemption.
Though select board vice chair Jeffrey (Skipper) Manter ultimately voted for the increase, he voiced concerns about shifting the bill onto second homeowners who may not be able to shoulder the higher cost.
“A lot of these people have owned these homes for generations and are not necessarily wealthy to support these and they’re my friends and neighbors,” he said. “They participate in our community, especially in the summertime, whether at the fair or at the farmers’ market or volunteering with the book sale at the library and all these things.”
Select board member Jessica Miller countered, saying that many of those second homeowners benefit from this exemption in their primary residence. She also said that seasonal residents still use services provided by year-round residents.
“In terms of fire departments and police departments and all the other services we offer and seasonal residents need, they may only use them for two months, but we still have to staff them,” she said. “In terms of school expenses, their children may not attend our schools, but their employees’ children do.”
There was a consensus behind the increase from members of the public who attended the hearing.
“By reducing the tax burden, it’ll go a long way, and I think it also sent a very strong signal to the state that West Tisbury is taking proactive steps towards securing home ownership situations that already exist and promoting home ownership opportunities for future low and moderate income homeowners in West Tisbury,” Laura Silber, the Island housing planner at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, said at the meeting.
West Tisbury resident Joanne Taylor supported raising the exemption to help her be able to continue affording living on the Island.
“This is very important to someone like me, who’s a senior,” she said. “It would be frightening to me to consider losing my home and having to move off Island.”

Comments
This is vineyard mythical
Michael EdgartownThis is vineyard mythical islanders driven as the pure snow logic, charge year round residents less. Tax thise that use fewer services more. Brilliant. And we wonder why businesses leave the island
It's obscene. Not to mention
tom BostonIt's obscene. Not to mention second homeowners already pay the majority of property taxes on the island.
Democracy in action.
Albert GosnoldDemocracy in action.
This only pushes people away…
Kate WT/BosThis only pushes people away… why not everyone pay there fair share?? Like many seasonal owners we contribute and do not use any services…. Without us … your taxes would be doubled…
You don’t use any services?
Year rounder VHYou don’t use any services? You don’t drive on the roads? You don’t have utilities? You wouldn’t call the police or EMT or fire dept in an emergency? You don’t use the services until you do. That’s what taxes are, I’m afraid- you pay in and don’t get to pick and choose how it’s used beyond elections. You don’t notice the year round people who staff these services and barely make ends meet until you need them and clearly take that for granted.
We don’t send our children to
MikeD WTWe don’t send our children to school.
The school portion of the taxes are very high for a service we don’t use.
Take the school tax off seasonal residents and see where the islands school system would be.
I dare to say way underfunded.
Nothing like killing your golden goose.
And interestingly- seasonable homes seem to be assessed higher thancomparable homes owned by year round residents.
Let’s say a seasonal home owner sells?
How many Islanders can afford a $2M+ home?
Maybe a lot - I saw the median income for WT is $193,000.
That’s more than I ever made.
So why are seasonal residents being penalized?
For having the tenacity to realize a dream?
Don’t allow anymore not for profits to buy land and take it off the tax rolls.
That is creating a much higher tax burden for the remaining home owners.
To say the residential tax
Eric Poehler Vineyard HavenTo say the residential tax exemption pushs people away is not based in fact or reality. Boston Massachusetts, the residential exemption for residents is 35 percent, In 2024, seven of the fifteen towns on Cape Cod have adopted a residential tax exemption (RTE), which shifts a portion of the tax burden from year-round residents to non-resident property owners. The exemption is a percentage of the average assessed value of residential properties, not a percentage off an individual's total tax bill.Excamples of town Exemption Percentage (2024) Barnstable 25%, Chatham 35% (voted to adopt in summer 2024), Eastham 30% (voted to adopt in summer 2024), Mashpee 20%
Provincetown 35%, Truro 35%, Wellfleet 32.5%.. As these percentages show the residental tax excemptions do not keep second home owners away nor speculators.
How do these numbers prove
tom BostonHow do these numbers prove residential exemptions do not push non-resident owners away? It may not impact some very wealthy owners but that doesn't mean it doesn't push others away? If anything, it assures nothing but the very wealth will set up camp on the Vineyard and the other towns you listed. But I thought we don't like the fact the Vineyard is becoming a playground for just the very wealthy? Why can't there be towns just be honest about it and say we want wealthy people to subsidize year round residents and the island as much as possible and we will hit them at every turn.
Think about the concept
Michael EdgartownThink about the concept exemption for full time residents that use 85 percent of the services. That is not fair, equitable and legal.
As an Islander I do not
TC WTAs an Islander I do not support this. I am very concerned we are pushing are bread and butter away… I see it happening. We are loosing the tourists for sure. I am a business owner and I see it year after year. The taxes on rentals was a huge hit. Sure we will always have the super wealth, but they cannot keep us afloat.
As an islander who lists his
Eric Poehler Vineyard HavenAs an islander who lists his name in a public forum, I fully disagree with your assessment, it only makes sense for islanders who make this special place possible to receive a much needed recognition in the form of a tax break which the state legislature in its view allows locals to be able to live where they either work or have worked.
i know it is legal to do this
michael edgartowni know it is legal to do this, but this is flat out wrong.....you divide people like this and expect us to get along?
Given the incentives, it's
jc wt / nycGiven the incentives, it's safe to assume the policy is here to stay. But if West Tisbury is going to treat different classes of taxpayers differently, it shouldn't stop here. Instead, it should strongly consider exempting non-resident taxpayers from other local property regulations, such as the recently enacted Short-term Rental By-Law, which cap their rental earnings and could otherwise interfere and imperil their ability to pay their increasingly disproportionate share of the town's property tax burden relative to resident taxpayers.
I strongly support this
Carol formerly ChilmarkI strongly support this residential tax exemption. People with second homes should understand that the only reason that Vineyard real estate has gone so sky-high in value is - demand for second homes. When I lived there in the 1970s, normal middle class and working class families with kids could live there. Almost impossible now. And West Tisbury tax rates are high.
It seems like we're poking a
Bob OBIt seems like we're poking a bear here. One of these days the seasonal residents, who own the vast majority of the real estate here, will notice how badly we are picking their pockets. If they were to organize in some way, and bring their enormous resources to bear, they could bring this place to it's knees. Just because we can vote to access someone else's money doesn't mean we should.
You are 100 percent correct.
just a thought mvyYou are 100 percent correct. The seasonal residents here and in other towns have been getting shafted by this unconstitutional 'law'. Just because elected representatives in Boston pass a law does not mean its constitutional. At some point an smart attorney will challenge the rule, and if it ends up in federal court it will get tossed. And those summer residents will be getting rebates from the towns. Let it not be forgotten that summer residents subsidize the year rounders but don't need to get 'dinged' further by an unconstitutional law.
Under the cover of the fall
James Otis West TisburyUnder the cover of the fall season and with no direct advance notice or communication to second-home owner taxpayers about the hearing, the West Tisbury "selected board" arbitrarily robs Peter to pay Paul. You have poked the bear that subsidizes your entire budget. Hold the next hearing in mid-summer when ALL can fully prepare, participate, and be heard.
Seems logical, but also it is
Me WtisSeems logical, but also it is the burden of those who chose a seasonal second home to stay on top of politics and town meetings if it concerns them
Now how about the land bank
Mh WtisNow how about the land bank fee…. Let’s drop that fee (actually a tax) entirely for first time home buyers and drop it entirely for those buying a house for primary residence use with sale price within 10% of current median home sale price or less.
The idea of second homeowners
Valerie NY/WTThe idea of second homeowners paying taxes for year-round residents is nonsensical. To me it makes more sense for second homeowners to pay less since second homeowners are using less of what the taxes pay for and for what the year-round residents benefit from all year round. I would like to have a tax exemption in my year-round residence but do not! It seems to me that paying for my neighbors’ taxes is a penalty. It would create a distinction between me and my neighbors lessening the ‘good feelings’ that I have for this beautiful place, a place we all are entitled to enjoy! If my neighbors are struggling with their finances, I hope there is another way to support them without placing this responsibility on other townspeople. Increasing our tax burdens will ultimately result in forcing some people to move out. If that is the goal, it is unfortunate.
Add new comment