Rhode Island House Bill H5752

Rhode Island 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/26/25
• Refer: 2/26/25

Caption

Imposes a property tax on non-owner occupied residential properties assessed worth at one million dollars ($1,000,000) and less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) and a higher tax on properties assessed at two million dollars ($2,000,000) or more.

Impact

The bill's implementation is expected to significantly affect state tax laws regarding residential property. By imposing this tax, the state aims to ensure that owners of high-value non-owner occupied properties contribute their fair share toward public services. This includes potentially increasing funding for essential municipal services such as police and fire protection, as the bill recognizes that such properties can often place a higher demand on these services compared to owner-occupied residences. Thus, HB 5752 may also influence the market dynamics of real estate in Rhode Island, especially concerning the treatment of properties held for speculative purposes.

Summary

House Bill 5752, entitled 'The Non-Owner Occupied Property Tax', is a measure aimed at generating state revenue through the imposition of property taxes on residential properties that are not occupied by their owners. Specifically, this bill targets properties assessed at one million dollars or more, imposing a standard tax rate of five dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value for properties valued between one million and two million dollars, and six dollars for those valued at two million dollars or more. The bill is introduced with the intent of alleviating the fiscal demands placed on local municipalities due to non-owner occupied properties, which often require extensive public services.

Contention

Despite the rationale behind its proposal, House Bill 5752 may provoke debate among stakeholders. Some property owners might argue that the tax could discourage investment in residential properties, particularly second homes or rental properties, affecting housing supply and affordability. Critics may contend that the bill does not adequately consider the long-term vacancies or upkeep that some of these properties endure, potentially leading to worse outcomes for neighborhoods. Additionally, there may be concerns from local governments about how this state-level tax might intersect with existing local taxation powers.