If it is not his permanent residence and he has to pay taxes on the property, then isn't it more of a use tax? Regardless, a use/proerty tax is kind of a two way agreement. If so, if the munincipality restricts him for using what he owns haven't they already violated that tax agreement then by prohibiting him from using it? I guess one could argue he could rent it out (assuming there are renters looking/could use as well) and then he is still using his property. Still, I see a lot of legal questions this could raise up if these measures continue. When it first hit and we didn't really have a handle on how it spreads etc, that was one thing. Public health emergency, sucked but I think most of us got that. Now? How long does this go on? Too much longer it will get like the Boston Tea Party days, taxation without representation (in this case, that being allowed to even use one's property).
And before you say no way, look at NH taking MA to the Supreme Court to challenge MA income taxes being withheld from now fully remote workers living and working out of NH. These measures will surely draw legal challenges on property taxes of owners being barred from use should this carry on much longer as well.
Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app
With the high rates second homeowners pay it has always been taxation without representation.