According to Summit Daily published on Sept. 5, towns are considering taxing “empty” houses.  

How are “empty” houses going to be defined? To me, an “empty” home is one without furniture, household supplies, personal belongings, or people. When I leave my Silverthorne home for my home in Texas, I am not leaving an “empty” home.  

Reading the article, I see the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) hopes such a tax would “incentivize homeowners to rent to full-time residents and disincentivize the purchase of homes solely as investments.” Perhaps CAST needs to actually speak to second-home owners and people who buy for investment purposes. I want to stay at my second home when I’m skiing in the winter and hiking in the summer, so I’m not going to rent the house to a full-time resident. I can’t imagine an investor buying a house and leaving it empty.

Or does “empty” mean those days nobody is home? That suggests a level of government intrusion that seems more than a little excessive. How many people will the government need to hire to snoop around to see if people are home? Where are you going to house all these newly employed snoops? How are you going to pay them? What about those full-time residents who went on a two week vacation to visit grandma? Are they going to have to pay extra taxes for those days?  

This is an incredibly stupid idea.