Keep it possible for Minnesotans to rent out their cabins

My grandfather was a traveling minister who built a modest cabin along the Gunflint Trail in the 1930s. It provided a home base that allowed him to reach out to folks in the area and spread the good word.

Though I have lived most of my life in Isanti County, I have always felt a deep connection to the Boundary Waters and North Shore. That is why my wife and I bought property a mile off Hwy. 61 in Cook County in 2000 and eventually added a three-bedroom cabin.

Since then, we routinely visit the cabin with friends to enjoy the year-round pleasures of the North Shore — from cross-country skiing to fishing to hiking to snowmobiling. Over time, we started renting our cabin to other families so that they can experience the wonders of this great part of the state.

But I'm concerned about changes that could prevent us from sharing our cabin with others, who would prefer to rent when they visit.

Last year, the Minnesota Department of Revenue directed county assessors across the state to consider reclassifying cabins and condos that are used as short-term rentals from seasonal recreational to commercial. This would double or even triple the property tax bill for vacation homeowners who sometimes rent their cabin or condo to tourists.

For communities like Grand Marais, Detroit Lakes and Brainerd — welcoming places that are gateways to some of the most beautiful parts of Minnesota — the impact will be devastating.

Already, counties across the state are reclassifying these properties in different ways, and the prospect of higher taxes is forcing many cabin and condo owners to rethink their options. In many cases, they would be forced to either raise rental prices or pull their properties off the rental market.

If that happens, communities that depend on tourism would suffer as local restaurants, gift shops and vendors would be forced to cut jobs. Over time, property values would fall dramatically, leaving fewer tax dollars to support local government and community services.

While my wife and I don't need the rental income to keep the cabin, we are struggling to decide what to do. After expenses, we use what's left to improve the property where we can, and we want to keep sharing it. In fact, when we go back to the cabin every six weeks or so, the first thing we do is look through the guest journal. It's deeply satisfying to read about those who experienced the wonders of this part of the state for the first time.

I believe it's fair to ask cabin owners to pay a little more in property taxes because they receive rental income. But we shouldn't tax them as if they were a Walmart or some other large business, which is what is starting to happen in some counties.

That is why I hope you will encourage your state lawmakers to support legislation that addresses this issue (HF 3826 and SF 3931). The proposal offers a middle ground for condos and cabins available for rental by creating a new property tax classification that falls between seasonal residential recreation and commercial.

Let's be smart and figure this out before we damage one of Minnesota's great legacies — family access to outdoor living and recreation.