The County Council is moving toward placing a levy lid lift on the April 2026 special election ballot. At the same time, the Council is talking publicly about affordability and housing pressure.  Yet, raising property taxes is the most direct way to make living more expensive.

I understand the position the County Council is in. Costs are rising, staffing is tight, and long term obligations do not disappear just because budgets are strained. At the same time, the County Council continues to talk publicly about affordability and housing stability, which makes the choice of tools especially important.

Before getting into the economics of this decision, I want to point out that it really matters how the County Council is choosing to bring this to voters.

Using special elections for property tax measures narrows who shows up and who gets heard. Turnout is lower and less representative, especially on regressive taxes that affect working households most. Approval under those conditions should not be confused with broad community support. At the very least, if property taxes are going to be put on the ballot, they should be decided in a general election, when the widest possible cross section of residents is participating.

With that said, let’s look directly at the economics of this decision, starting with how quickly property tax increases stack.

Each taxing district acts on its own, but the bill shows up in one place. When the County Council, the school district, the hospital district, the fire district, and others all raise levies over time, even small increases add up fast.

The numbers already show this happening. Countywide property tax collections increased from about $77.5 million to $86.7 million in a single year, an 11.9% jump before any new County levy lid lift. That is nearly $9.2 million more taken out of household budgets across the County in one year. That money did not come from new wages or new economic growth. It came off kitchen tables, out of savings, and away from other choices families used to have. The increase did not come from one decision or one district. It came from overlapping levies, voter approved increases, banked capacity, and rising valuations spread across schools, fire, hospital, library, EMS, and other taxing districts. Each change was small enough to pass quietly on its own. Taken together, especially when increases reset future levy bases, they added up fast.

Property is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and for some time now those prices have had far less to do with local economic growth or use and far more to do with the growing popularity of the island. Wealthy buyers, political figures, and high profile investors increasingly treat real estate here as a place to park money rather than as housing tied to the local economy. When assessed values rise under those conditions, and are combined with overlapping levies, banked capacity, and voter approved increases, higher costs are locked into the tax system, leaving long term residents to absorb burdens set by a market they cannot realistically participate in.

Property taxes are inherently regressive. They do not adjust based on income or ability to pay. They hit working households, retirees on fixed incomes, and long term residents hardest. In a place shaped by extreme wealth and rising valuations, that regressivity gets amplified. For wealthy and absentee owners, these increases barely register. For everyone else, they become another fixed cost that cannot be avoided.

The outcomes are not hard to see. Rising fixed costs push working families out. Long term residents leave. Ownership shifts upward into second homes and underused properties that are not tied to the local economy.

As this pressure builds, it becomes hard to ignore the structure of the local economy itself. At this point, a large share of the remaining working class in San Juan County works for government. County, town, state, schools, the hospital district, and related public entities now make up much of the stable year round employment that is left.

Government workers here are being squeezed by the same forces as everyone else. Housing costs, utilities, and property taxes keep rising, and those increases show up immediately in monthly budgets and rents. When property taxes rise, those costs move straight through the system and land on workers directly, regardless of where they work.

The issue is structural. Government matters. Public services matter. But government was never meant to function as a jobs program that replaces a diverse local economy. When productive private sector engines disappear and are replaced by a mix of real estate speculation and expanding government payrolls funded by regressive taxes, the system turns inward. Taxes rise to support a structure that drives costs higher. Workers need more money to stay. Budgets grow. Then more tax increases get proposed. It is a loop that cannot resolve an affordability problem because each attempt to manage rising costs pushes those costs higher.

Which brings this back to the decision in front of the County Council right now. The County Council is responding to rising costs with a tool that mechanically makes affordability worse. That is not about motives or intentions. It is about cause and effect.

None of this is easy. I do not pretend the County Council’s choices are simple. But difficulty does not remove choice. This is not inevitable. Continuing to lean on regressive property tax increases in a constrained local economy will not protect affordability or community stability. It will keep hollowing them out.

For these reasons, I am asking the San Juan County Council to reconsider advancing a levy lid lift, to break this cycle, and to do the far harder work of rolling up its sleeves and governing within real constraints instead of returning again to the same perceived never ending well of property tax revenue.

If this matters to you, it is worth saying so. Residents should reach out to their County Council members and make clear that affordability is not protected by defaulting to higher property taxes, and that enough really is enough.

Jeremy Nash