PORTLAND – Maine has the greatest percentage of vacation homes in the nation, and it’s unclear whether that will become a factor in the debate over a property tax-cap referendum.

Tax-cap supporters tout benefits for regular Mainers, but it’s left unsaid that the cap also benefits both Maine residents and out-of-staters who own lakefront camps, ski resort condominiums or island cottages.

Whether second-home owners would benefit more under the proposed cap is debatable. But a New Yorker who summers on a Casco Bay island and a struggling millworker would both get a property tax cut – a fact that could come into play as voters decide whether to back the so-called Palesky proposal.

“I am not sure what impact it will have, but I have heard the argument from people,” said Charles Colgan, former state economist and a professor at the University of Southern Maine’s Muskie School of Public Service.

Maine’s percentage of seasonal and recreational houses eclipses all other states, including Florida and Hawaii, according to the U.S. Census. Tax-cap critics question whether tax relief should include these homeowners.

“We cannot afford to give up revenue from second-home owners who I think in general regard property taxes, frankly, as a very small price for the homes they hold very highly,” said Christopher St. John, executive director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy.

Those who support the cap, however, believe reducing taxes no matter where a property owner lives or how many homes he owns is the fairest approach. In fact, the Maine Constitution requires it, they said.

“We are treating everyone equally,” said Carol Palesky, a tax activist who led the petition drive to get the cap on a statewide ballot.

On Nov. 2 voters will have their say on the proposal to cap property taxes at $10 per $1,000 of assessed value, based on the value of property in 1996-97.

In many communities, the tax rate would drop to $10, in line with the proposal. Property assessments, however, are expected to remain unchanged because of a state supreme court opinion that it’s unconstitutional to roll back values to 1996-97 levels and freeze them until a sale.

Economists said homeowners in vacation communities with higher tax rates would benefit from a cap, while those living in towns with lower rates would not. Many of the state’s vacation spots, like Mount Desert or the Cranberry Isles, have low tax rates due to their high property values. This means tax rates are already near or below the $10 rate.

“The cap will be meaningless for many people that have second homes,” said state Rep. Peter Mills, R-Cornville, an opponent of the Palesky proposal, whose district includes a number of lakes and ponds with vacation homes.

Colgan, however, sees the cap providing a special boost for second-home owners, especially those who come to Maine a few months each year to ski, boat or enjoy the rocky coast.

Colgan said these homeowners will see the cut in taxes without experiencing the pain that may follow.

The cuts in local services, from education to street plowing to police protection, matter little to residents who are in a community for the summer. And the ways in which the state may combat a predicted $600 million drop in local revenue is through income, sales and other taxes, which affect year-round residents more than seasonal residents, Colgan said.

Phil Harriman, a former state senator from Yarmouth and spokesman for Tax Cap YES!, expects opposition groups will spin the tax cap in various ways, from saying it will decimate town services to playing average Mainers against the owners of vacation homes.