North Dakota will vote on whether to become the first state without property taxes — but the move could worry locals

North Dakota could soon make history by becoming the first U.S. state to eliminate property taxes, a bold move that advocates say will ease the financial burden on homeowners and open doors for first-time buyers.

But critics warn that this sweeping change could leave local communities struggling to fund essential services and relying on an uncertain government solution.

Mounting frustration over rising property taxes has increased support for the measure. Proponents say it will provide long-needed relief and help make real estate more affordable.

The ballot question is simple, but has serious implications: Should North Dakota eliminate property taxes entirely, fundamentally changing the way local governments are funded?

By shifting that responsibility to the state, the measure would destroy a major source of revenue for counties and municipalities and raise concerns about how and whether those services would remain unaffected.

With elections just around the corner, voters in the traditionally conservative state are leaning toward voting no. North Dakota voters rejected a similar proposal in 2012, and the 2024 edition faces similar voter headwinds.

A North Dakota Monitor poll from late September found that 40% of voters plan to vote against it, 28% plan to vote in favor – while a sizable third are still undecided.

Opponents, including Republican Gov. Doug Burgum, argue that property taxes are critical to funding schools, emergency services, infrastructure and other public services.

Losing this reliable source of revenue would destabilize county and city budgets and potentially jeopardize vital services.

“It is complete misinformation to say that if you vote to somehow eliminate property taxes, then you stop property taxes; You won’t,” Burgum said at a recent meeting in the North Dakota town of Watford City.

“What you're going to do is you're going to get someone else to pay the bill, that's what this whole thing is about. It's about who will pay for it. It doesn’t reduce the cost of delivering goods across our state, it just shifts the burden to someone else.”

The story continues