How Can We The Increase Affordable Housing Supply? Ideas?

Submitted by twentiesforever t3_10wm8vs in vermont

Obviously, we have a housing crisis which is not unique to Vermont. But solutions for other states may not work here. I'd love to hear some ideas. There has been a lot of STR frustration lately but ultimately it seems that as a % of total housing, its quite small and quite expensive housing especially in the ski towns. How can we actually provide affordable housing to more Vermonters?

Looks like Winooski streamlined their permitting which has created a ton of new units walking distance to downtown. And the Champlain Housing Trust built condos to sell Under market value by a lot. Get rid of Act 250? More Section 8 vouchers? Allow tiny homes?

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Kiernanstrat t1_j7p7sdn wrote

I think people completely misunderstand the idea of what "affordable housing" is. Either you have houses that are bought and sold at the market rate or you have subsidized housing. When the market is such that even the most inexpensive housing options are still expensive then there is no affordable housing.

38

Loudergood t1_j7pwxhj wrote

You can reduce demand for less desirable uses in the market. This will drop prices of the "starter home" type houses and condos.

6

Kiernanstrat t1_j7py0s7 wrote

How do you reduce demand for less desirable houses?

2

Loudergood t1_j7pz5t0 wrote

Make running short term rentals less profitable.

10

Kiernanstrat t1_j7q06fa wrote

Has that been effective elsewhere?

2

Loudergood t1_j7q53mw wrote

Not sure I've seen it implemented long enough anywhere. We'll have to watch results from what Burlington is doing.

3

Kink4202 t1_j7o7wb3 wrote

All colleges need to house all students on campus. Ban short term rentals, if the owner doesn't live in it at least 75% of the time.

33

Careful_Square1742 t1_j7oytve wrote

UVM is supposed to house 12,000 students? You think housing is hard to find now, wait till groovy-uvy buys up every piece of real estate in a 10 mile radius and turns it all into dorms

17

omniplatypus t1_j7qhl0w wrote

Can confirm, went to a major state school that does this

3

o08 t1_j7p45d1 wrote

My neighbor put it in the only affordable housing in my town around 20 years ago. She donated a portion of her land to the Windham/Windsor housing trust. That housing trust put in around 40-50 mixed/affordable housing units and that same trust manages the complex.

If towns were serious about housing, they would identify and keep land that is suitable for development when it comes up for tax sale and then bring in a housing trust to build and manage.

Act 250 is necessary to ensure big business provides housing for employees or donates to a housing trust when they do develop land. Also necessary so that affordable housing isn’t placed in a wetland or floodplain.

22

thentherewerelimes t1_j7sf2bf wrote

Act 250 only cares about not putting housing in a wetland or Indian Burial Ground or whatever. It doesn't do anything about affordability.

1

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7pjrkv wrote

Just tax the shit out of second homes until they sell to locals. I couldn't figure out why people wouldn't support this, but that's because all the rich folk with their single family home vacation properties are on this sub.

21

-_Stove_- t1_j7qmkxp wrote

Or maybe because, while this sounds like a great idea, the implementation is a nightmare.

0

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j7qixqb wrote

Or maybe people still care about property rights, even in this Progressive utopia.

−3

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qlcdk wrote

Second homes are already being taxed. Nothing to do with property rights. Why should we cater to wealthy outsiders and continue to shoot ourselves in the foot? Just use the money to fund universal childcare for Vermonters or something like that.

8

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s8p51 wrote

This is where VT is at. We should not cater to wealthy outsiders and end up with no workforce as result of it.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7qn25g wrote

You would shoot yourselves in the foot by losing all of the local tax revenue and tourism jobs if they leave

−3

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j7rb6ha wrote

You’re suggesting to raise the taxes until the owners surrender and sell. Don’t tell me what to do with my money. Don’t tell me what I can do with my property. Don’t tell me how to heat my house.

−8

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7rkjzs wrote

Yeah pretty much. Do what you want with your money, but you obviously have an entitled attitude that assumes your actions have no consequences.

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s8rud wrote

We're not, we're just telling you how much you have to pay in taxes. If it's too much you'd be free to sell.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7qmz3b wrote

As an outsider, you already “tax the shit” out of second homes, which, by the way, bring tens of thousands of jobs to the state, fund your schools, fund your police, etc

−5

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qnxlb wrote

I am sick of this narrative that "Vermont needs the rich second home owners". It's straight up bullshit. We have cleaning businesses and property management because we are adaptable and resourceful people. If you left tomorrow we'd just shuffle our business model again. We don't need rich people, that's an elitist attitude. I'd love to see the statistic, by the way, on how second homes bring "tens of thousands of jobs to the state."

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rwefb wrote

It's total horseshit. We would have tourism without second homes. Maybe we'd lose some tourism but we'd be better off because we'd maybe gain workforce housing. Way back when I worked in a tourist industry in Burlington. 20 years ago. SO MANY QUEBECOIS. They're going to keep coming no matter what.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7qp8le wrote

Let’s take Waitsfield. The schools are floated almost wholly by second home owners, the businesses as well. What do you tell a town like that? No one is stopping Vermonters from building factories in parts of the state and creating jobs

2

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qrhr7 wrote

The resulting tax situation would be either the same or better in terms of revenue because some portion of the second homes would simply foot the bill for higher taxes while others would free up homes for locals. I for one will not be grateful to my rich, vacation home overlords. Fuck that

5

mattgm1995 t1_j7qvvlw wrote

How would the tax situation be better? The same number of homes would be taxed at a lower rate, also assuming they sold the vacation homes and left you’d lose a shit ton in vts 9% meals tax and 10% alcohol tax, not to mention gas tax.

0

GreenPL8 t1_j7rmkik wrote

Primary homeowners pay taxes too.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7rn94a wrote

Of course! Just 1) at a lower rate and 2) ski towns, for instance, 2nd homeowners pay a significant amount of a local or regional schools budget

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rgmfp wrote

You're confusing tourism with second homes.

5

mattgm1995 t1_j7rgvqx wrote

Many people in tourist towns have second homes. There are tens of thousands of second homes and condos in ski towns, in hunting areas, around lakes. The two are related

−4

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rhs3w wrote

Any place that has an economy based on one industry is in bad shape. VT would do well to stop worrying about outside money and start worrying about its residents while it still has some left.

VT should be taxing second homes to the point where they are just not affordable and people are forced to sell. Way too many people here don't have one home. It's a bit greedy to have seconds while some people are still hungry.

4

mattgm1995 t1_j7rj9gw wrote

There’s plenty of empty land in VT. Why don’t you build more instead of punishing people who enjoy spending time in the state? Tourism supplies 10% of VTs jobs, skiing isn’t going away, and outsiders bring $3B into Vermont yearly. You want to lose that?

−1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rjqli wrote

I don't necessarily want to lose tourism. I'm fine with people not being able to afford a second home here. Most of the tourism in Burlington comes from Quebec. They aren't going to stop coming. If we lost the NJ/NYC/MA crowd and gained workforce housing, that would be a win for the state.

As an nonresident, you seem to be missing that VT does whatever it can to fight sprawl. That's why we have open land. Most of us want real jobs, not jobs waiting on rich people.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rk6wl wrote

Most of burlingtons tourism is from the rest of New England. And much of it is from people who have second homes and want to go out in Burlington. As a resident who is super entrenched in their position I think you’re missing the ramifications. Also, no one is stopping you from getting a good paying remote job. Major employers aren’t going to suddenly move campuses and jobs to Vermont because “housing is available”

0

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rkm2l wrote

Lol. OK. I have a job. I don't want a remote job, that sounds miserable. I'd rather live and work in my community.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rksv5 wrote

What do you expect these high paying jobs that suddenly flood the state when we all leave to be?

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rl77f wrote

I don't see the connection. Housing would be more attainable.

Tourism jobs don't pay livable wages anyway and soon there won't be anyone to fill them.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7rlhnj wrote

You said “most of us want real jobs, not jobs waiting on rich people”. If you lose 30,000 jobs, what jobs do you think will suddenly appear?

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rm0hv wrote

30k seems very high, and pretty arbitrary and pretty pulled out of your ass.

I really don't care what you think, honestly.

If you think people are happy to work minimum wage jobs with no benefits, instead of having available housing that's great. Good for you.

Most people in VT don't work in tourism. We can't hire teachers at the moment because we don't have housing. If we lost second homes, people would still come. Not a problem.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rmd6n wrote

http://accd.vermont.gov/tourism/research before you go insulting me and since you clearly haven’t done one ounce of research, it’s from your own states website.

And I don’t think that. I’m just asking you, where do you expect jobs to appear from? What companies are moving 30k jobs to Vermont?

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rmsz7 wrote

Dude, seriously. I don't care. People who have enough money to have a second home in VT are a tiny percentage. The vast majority of tourists don't own second homes here. We would still have tourists without second homes, this argument is just stupid.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rn3hq wrote

Not going to address you insulted me despite the numbers coming from your own states website? I’d argue a significant amount of money comes from people who spend their weekends and vacations at second homes in Vermont, spending money in restaurants, gas stations, mom and pop stores, etc but it doesn’t affect me if you can’t understand how the world works. Because it’s going to keep working whether you’re onboard or not.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rnlaw wrote

Jesus. It's reddit. Get over yourself for fucks sake.

"I'd argue a significant..." is not a meaningful statistic, and the state doesn't live to serve you and will be fine without you.

Good fucking christ rich people are the worst.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7ro813 wrote

It’s Reddit. Okay. “Get over yourself for fucks sake” Here goes then. Save money and buy a house. If you can’t afford it, get a better job. If you can’t find a better job, move to a state with high paying jobs, and if you can’t change your living situation, grow up and look at the hand you’ve given yourself and deal with it.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7roi54 wrote

Lol. I have an advanced degree and a good job. The cost of housing in VT is completely divorced from wages in VT. We're trying to fix it. One of the fixes is making homes available for residents. Deal with it.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rot1k wrote

You think this is a uniquely Vermont problem? I live in Eastern MA and also can’t afford to live in a nice town. On a six figure salary. This is a New England problem. Vermont is in a better place than MA tho since they at least have land to build

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rpddn wrote

Maybe sell your other fucking house? Jesus.

2

mattgm1995 t1_j7rpzs5 wrote

It’s our family home, not mine. Point being, it’s not a Vermont issue. Kicking everyone out isn’t going to help you

2

hippiepotluck t1_j7samqi wrote

What are you talking about? Some Vermont towns even tax second homes at a lower rate than primary homes. Even those that do, it’s not punitively higher as you suggest. I know the rate in Manchester is only like 5% higher for second homeowners. I truly believe that that town is an example of where this is all leading and it’s not good. Second homeowners do not participate in the community and when there are too many vacant homes it becomes unsustainable. You can’t have a town that no one actually lives in no matter how much they pay in property tax.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7sggl7 wrote

Manchester is like stowe. It's technically in Vermont but it in no way resembles Vermont. I went there for the first time recently (grew up in northern VT). Holy shit. Such a strange place. I absolutely do not see the attraction to places like that. The Lincoln stuff is cool, I guess. Otherwise, eww.

3

hippiepotluck t1_j7sifsj wrote

Exactly. And it’s a bummer. There’s still good things, but more and more of the town is meant for people who don’t live there so it feels phony somehow. Like Uncanny Valley.

3

mattgm1995 t1_j7sbbig wrote

Valid points, though I will also say outsiders use the roads the least, do not send their children to community schools, or take advantage of other town things so they get much less benefit for the tax they do pay. We can agree to disagree but some towns are just going to be that way. How would you change ski towns?

1

hippiepotluck t1_j7sf384 wrote

Honestly, I don’t think that matters. If you own x% of the value of a town you should pay at least that percent of the cost of running that town and educating its children. Whether you choose to use those services is not really relevant, if you live here you don’t get a tax break if you don’t have kids or don’t drive.

1

mattgm1995 t1_j7sfiui wrote

That’s fair! And I think the current system is plenty fair to the locals as is.

1

Syncope7 t1_j7ul5px wrote

Second homes that are empty for most of the year are a drain. You are a drain. Sell your second home.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7ur3cv wrote

You wanna defund your own schools, towns, states, leading to layoffs in the tourism industry?

1

Syncope7 t1_j7v0ske wrote

You act like your taxes save us. THANK YOU!!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!

I’d rather see a happy family all year round, rather thank your ungrateful ass for 2 weeks.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7v35yz wrote

And you act like we provide nothing! I spend well over 90 days a year in Vermont.

1

Syncope7 t1_j7vdlvm wrote

Woah, well over 90 days! Shoot, I didn’t know that I was in the presence of a partial-Vermonter!!?

Go to hell and take your money with you. Eat the rich.

−1

mattgm1995 t1_j7vg9o2 wrote

In your utopia then your taxes get raised significantly to make up for the shortfall of us subsidizing your communities. You’re fine with that I assume? Why can’t you just coexist with us? We love our time in vermont.

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p8lgq wrote

Nationally it’s not lack of development, it’s the rental management companies algorithmically pricing rents with no regards for anything but profit.

Footnotes:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/informationtechnology/2022/10/rent-going-up-one-companys-algorithm-could-be-why/%3famp=1

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/property-management/revenuerevolution-pushing-rents-becomes-the-norm_o

https://extranewsfeed.com/a-history-of-landlords-rent-the-feudal-origins-of-a-nonworking-class-e718e6c82e2f

https://popular.info/p/death-by-eviction https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna52111 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/nyregion/queens-landlordconvicted-in-plot-to-kill-two-tenants.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/02/worlddispatch.oliverburkeman

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.laprogressive.com/.amp/homeles sness/studies-find-rent-control-works https://www.housinghumanright.org/is-billionaire-landlord-sam-zellthe-quintessential-corporate-vulture/ https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102915/how-sam-zell-madehis-fortune.asp

https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/risk-and-reward-aconversation-with-sam-zell https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/steve-schwarzman-buys-80-millionenglish-country-estate

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.jpost.com/50-most-influential-jews/article-717735/amp

https://fintechmagazine.com/venture-capital/stephen-a-schwarzman-the-billionare-who-builtblackstone

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/090915/how-stephen-schwarzman-built-blackstonegroup.asp

https://www.invitationtenants.com/blackstone-profits-from-the-foreclosure-crisis/

https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b14zb99vmk6h6n/blackstones-stephen-schwarzman-onnot-wasting-a-serious-crisis

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/2118625/corporate-landlords-are-benefiting-frominflation/amp/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/rich-investors-make-easy-scapegoat-risingrents/606607/

https://archive.ph/TjPXE

12

GreenPL8 t1_j7rmotn wrote

That's capitalism for ya.

3

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7s9wxm wrote

Yeah. Capitalism is great, but it often requires guardrails. We’ve built a lot of new roads in the last few decades. Time to add some guardrails.

1

buildandgrow t1_j7pj4t3 wrote

I don’t think this has been mentioned, but, as a state or municipality, I would try to make being a long term rental landlord more attractive than being a short term rental landlord.

Before the str boom, long term was the only game in town so landlords dealt with the regulations and difficulties the state imposed, now they have a more attractive solution in STRs. It’s not surprising they’d leave one game for the other. I’d suggest updating landlord rights to fit with the current landscape. Otherwise, landlords will continue to opt for short term over long term.

11

GreenPL8 t1_j7rm9s3 wrote

One of the biggest risks is a tenant damaging the property or fighting a lawful eviction. How do you fix that?

3

buildandgrow t1_j7scjmj wrote

Exactly. Not an area I know well at all but my understanding is that evictions can often take months (landlord friend went 9 months with a tenant not paying rent before the tenants could be pried out by the sheriff). For a small time landlord this can be a back breaker (1-2K/month less income) and for some just not worth the risk when you can charge a higher rate with less risk in the STR market.

Surely there are many examples, counter examples, and horror stories to this issue, but for the system to work, evicting a tenant who is not paying rent ought to be fairly seamless.

And again, I am suggesting just to incentivize long term over short term. I’m not exactly a pro landlord kind of guy by nature.

3

RamaSchneider t1_j7oxb0l wrote

Act 250 does not now and never has halted development. It has slowed development down from time to time, but that's the worst (or maybe the best) of it.

Local zoning is the governmental culprit.

But the biggest culprit is actually our economic system of rewards. I'm 100% pro-free enterprise and a very loosely controlled economy; but this current version that we call "capitalism" is killing us all - literally. And housing is only a part of that.

We don't have a lack of easy and quick to develop properties. The major problem is that some segments of society have so much extra cash, they can and do buy up for their own personal pleasure the very resources others need to live. This statement is about cause and effect and is not meant to cast moral stones.

But we can't do much about the macro-economics. We have to deal with the symptoms the best we can. So I'd start with tax policy aimed at discouraging non-home steading type house buying and absentee landlords.

8

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p7rsk wrote

Spot on.

Slow development is partly to blame. Air bnb is partly to blame.

But the huge surge is rental prices is directly attributable to a surge and consolidation in software based rental pricing industry. Basically they’ve realized it’s more profitable to continually raise rents and have large turnover and higher vacancy. These companies (mostly one) manage enough properties that they’ve dragged all prices up.

We’re not actually short on housing nationally by most metrics. Housing construction isn’t lagging by most metrics. Enough cards are held by theses companies that they can manipulate the market. Adding more housing that are managed this way won’t lower rents.

Edit: I know I give you crap on many of your posts, but I fully agree with many of your takes. It’ll take national legislation to sort out the root causes of this issue.

8

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j7pnapc wrote

National legislation cannot fix this.

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7pntkd wrote

What will? Simply encouraging development won’t fix it if most of the new units are owned by huge companies. That’s like trying to lower gas prices by encouraging opec to drill more…

2

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j7q5hbr wrote

Nope. State government is your best shot at a framework that might work.
National legislation will only make things worse as square pegs don’t fit into round holes.

2

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7s9myp wrote

I don’t see how Vt state government can address the massive consolidation in algorithmic rental pricing. They don’t have the reach or power. Sure they can address smaller issues such as short term rentals and barriers to development, but those arent the main drivers of the broader housing issues.

I still maintain that it requires regulation of corporate landlords and their pricing practices. That’s an issue for national legislators.

2

goldenlight18 t1_j7phxhd wrote

I disagree with that assessment two-fold. Act 250 can prohibit development by starving a builder of the funds to complete a project through "slowing development". There are some segments of society that have extra cash and try to build something with it, but Act 250 frequently punishes those who try by making it such an onerous and expensive undertaking. Owning land, paying taxes and mortgages, permitting on local & state levels, staff to repeatedly draw up plans to satisfy govt, neighbors, and random interested parties is expensive - let alone funding it without breaking ground for 15 - 20 years or until someone runs out of money or gives up. Thats insane, it disincentives people from building.

If you look at stats put out by the VHFA, people just stopped building in the late 90s, early 2000s (way before 2008). There are also a LOT of people that move here for the "Vermont way of life" and then fight every development that could serve to house people born here to keep their bucolic dream alive. This pushes development to be expensive sprawling messes where someone can get a foothold and run with it instead of smart, mixed use, downtown intensive development.

Which hurts people born in Vermont the most by restricting the number of homes on the market and allowing outside buyers to scoop up what remains, who are then widely resented for an issue they stumbled into. Would recommend reading this article by Seven Days from last year that does a good job at explaining the way NIMBYS wield Act 250 to protect their own housing interests.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/obstruction-zone-how-vermonts-land-use-regulations-impede-new-development-and-complicate-the-states-housing-crisis/Content?oid=35279122

​

**Edited because the stats are put out by VHFA not VHCB, used the wrong acronym!

6

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7ser2j wrote

Stumbled into? I get where you're going with this and I don't totally disagree but people moving here can't be oblivious to what's going on.

1

goldenlight18 t1_j841vr7 wrote

I mean, have you seen the posts of people looking to move to Vermont who are consulting Reddit? And I would bet that 99% of the people who can afford to cash offer on a home in VT from out of state aren't consulting reddit about where to move their life to and have a vague idea but assume it's like the housing crisis in the rest of the country and not nearly as bad as it is.

1

MYrobouros t1_j7p5pkl wrote

There's a great plan from the DHCD and the Congress for the New Urbanism. It aims to continue historical patterns in villages and towns with things like cottage courts, mid density multiuse areas, and accessory dwelling units.

VT won't be affordable without new housing, and specifically the right kind of new housing to help young new families and aging Vermonters be able to live here. I love my drafty old farmhouse but it's not the right house for most people in this state anymore and it probably never will be again.

https://www.cnu.org/vermont

A big part of our problem is with relatively recent zoning changes that require things like large minimum lots. That sounds like it preserves VT on its surface but the result is 1 house every 3 acres and no woods at all.

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rhaxl wrote

It's going to be "stuff the poors (locals) in shitty condos in Williston and leave the pristine areas for the fresh arrivals from Jersey." No thanks. I personally am leaving as soon as I can because I have no interest in being one of the last people working here, trying to do 3 people's jobs while living in a ratty apartment.

Want to know why families are homeless? I'm a single guy with an advanced degree and a decent job. I'm stuck in a shit apartment because there's absolutely no where to move to. Instead of my shit apartment going to a young single mom or someone exiting homelessness, it's being occupied by me so that rich people can live on a few acres.

The future of VT is one of a bunch of old rich people unable to even buy groceries because there's no one here to sell them to them.

3

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7ozj0m wrote

Lots of people in this thread who are from out of state and now realize they can’t buy due to the shortage so they are looking to turn VT into wherever they came from by building new houses and jamming so many people in that the reasons that made them want to move here disappears.

Down vote away but stop trying to turn VT into CT or MA or NJ or NY so you can own a house here.

The STR discussions are a honeypot. A tiny amount of houses owned by more economically successful people than the ones complaining about it. You are been spoon fed an enemy that if you defeat will have near zero impact on the claimed cause and will honestly, not really impact the wallet of those with STR.

You can’t afford to buy a house here. Accept it. I can’t afford to buy a house In Hawaii or even costal Florida. I can’t afford a house in Boulder either. Maybe look to a place you can afford to live.

5

Hellrazor32 t1_j7p5lnp wrote

Yeah well what about the Vermonters who were born here? Don’t we deserve to live near our families? Or should we just be expected to force our elderly parents out of their (paid off) homes and ship them to the cheap states we were forced to move to for our own convenience? What about the 6th generation Vermonters who can afford a 300k home but not a 600k home? We really should just go kick rocks?

Building homes will not “ruin” Vermont. In my lifetime, I’ve heard that solar farms, wind farms, houses, businesses would ruin the state and turn it into New Jersey. Yet somehow, Vermont is still beautiful. I’m so sick of this “tough titty” attitude. Not enough housing is tearing apart families, and it’s destructive to the culture and heritage of Vermont. Housing is a human right. Hey guess what? If you don’t like neighbors, then you should be able to afford 40 acres so you can pretend you live in 18th Century Vermont. Oh, too expensive? Well, move somewhere cheaper.

20

thesbaine t1_j7phtyy wrote

Obligatory CT resident that likes to keep tabs on my fellow NE states: yeah, no one is trying to turn VT into anything else, and I see the same arguments here that I do in CT. Outside of the cities and large towns, CT has just as many folks going "but it'll ruin the aesthetics" or "but it'll ruin the charm". Totally disregard the fact, though, that many of the towns saying that have open pit quarries on their main roads and have distribution centers/warehouses as their main fixtures right next to their downtown that contains a dive bar, 3 pizza places, and seven nail salons.

Let's be real here: the goal has never been keeping the "charm" of towns. It's always been about keeping "those" people out.

7

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rx1ny wrote

They are, actually. We're filling up with people from NJ and MA who aren't coming here to work, they're coming here to work remotely or spend their parents money or both. Their answer to our 0.00000001% vacancy rate is build, build, build.

2

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7p7gyy wrote

I responded to the other guy who asked the same question. See that response rather than me retyping it .

2

GreenPL8 t1_j7rnn09 wrote

Do you think you are more deserving because you were born here? The problem with Vermont is it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

−1

Hellrazor32 t1_j7rt9m0 wrote

I mean, yeah actually I do think that people who buy homes where they’re born deserve homes in that state at an incentivized rate, or be given first refusal on property. If it’s cheaper to go to college in-state, why shouldn’t it be cheaper to buy a home in-state? It’s really incredibly sad to me that so many of us are priced out of the counties we grew up in.

Vermont has the 2nd highest homeless population per capita after California, where they’ve declared it a state of emergency. Something’s gotta give. Homes gotta get built!

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7sf75o wrote

That's the difference. In California it's big news all the time. Obviously they have a ton of unhoused people and that forces the issue but California is taking real steps, like penalizing towns that don't build affordable housing, that VT will never take. Just like back in the day when stowe went nuts over the education spending law, wealthy VT will never build for real people.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rxg2y wrote

What's happening here is gentrification just like in a big city. Locals out, New Jersey money in. Sorry we're sick of it.

2

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7p3u3b wrote

And if you grew up here, work here and can't afford to buy? The problem with "can't afford to live here so leave" is very soon VT won't have any service industry workers. People will be cutting their own hair, fixing their own plumbing, etc.

10

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7p73xu wrote

I didnt say if you can't afford to live here than leave. I said if you can't afford to move here than don't.

Big difference.

I grew up here. Dirt poor. It took me about 18 years to finally get a house to call a home. It sucked and took every penny I had for 12 of those years going to a building project.

Locals are not being priced out by locals. They are being priced out by people who consider affordable to be way beyond the means of someone who came up here. They are playing you my man. STR are not the enemy, the reason you can't afford a house is work from home folks with NYC income and who are moving to places like Cambridge or Fairfax.

8

Hellrazor32 t1_j7piy8f wrote

Locals are pricing out locals. Both in the rental market and in buying markets. Scarcity of housing drives up cost, and refusing to build is what creates the scarcity. There are definitely NIMBY Vermonters who don’t want housing options to decrease their property value. A development of 10 homes across road from their home could mean they only get a 100k profit rather than 200k when (if?) they eventually sell.

6

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rxjle wrote

Whoops, my bad. That is a big difference.

Edit, we totally agree, I read your post wrong.

3

Loudergood t1_j7q7l67 wrote

Hundreds of houses in the STR market is not a drop in the bucket here.

Also we could seriously go for more density in the villages and downtowns. Most of them have a few mixed use "Block" buildings already and they could probably use a few more.

5

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7qd4wc wrote

Yes, they are.

Str represents about 2.5 percent of total housing in VT. That includes room and complete units.

Less then 10% of those are owned by investment firms.

Second homes represent about 17%

Stop being a pawn and do some research.

2

Loudergood t1_j7qe17o wrote

Tell me, what is the current vacancy rate?

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7r1xkd wrote

As of 2021 (2022 not available) 2.5

I se second quarter 22 is available. 2.4

2

Loudergood t1_j7r2mip wrote

So we could double that in one stroke. While building.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7r3ekm wrote

No you can't. 2.5% represents all STR. All rooms, camps, seasonal rentals and everything else which is rented and not a hotel or B&B.

1

Loudergood t1_j7r48q1 wrote

That must apply to the vacancies as well, so doubling is still accurate.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7r4st6 wrote

Disengenous to say a vacancy in a house as a str room is the same as a vacancy in an apartment. The numbers need context.

1

Loudergood t1_j7r75mf wrote

No one is talking about shutting down room rentals, those aren't part of the problem, and are a small percentage of Airbnbs.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7rg0vy wrote

But they are included in the 2.5% of units which are STR. As are seasonal camps and other non year round dwellings fo saying banning STR will double the vacancy rate is incorrect because it ignore the fact that not ever STR could or would become a LTR.

2

idreamofchickpea t1_j7pfwfe wrote

Do you imagine that housing is affordable elsewhere? Housing is a national crisis and it’s only getting worse. I agree with you that STRs are only part of the problem and a convenient scapegoat, but so are your imaginary rich chuds from “elsewhere.” You know very well that plenty of Vermonters are just scraping by - this is absolutely a political decision and there is no reason to live like this.

4

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rwsrv wrote

That first paragraph is the story of VT. Chittenden County is already NJ North, only a matter of time before the rest of the state is too.

I disagree on one point. We need to build workforce housing. We don't need to build remote worker housing, but we need young people working here if the state has any hope of being livable, which it probably doesn't.

2

Impressive-Parfait18 t1_j7p9unp wrote

What exactly is the definition of ‘affordable housing’ in Vermont? 200k? 300k?

Real estate agents can also be a stop gap here, ensuring homes went to VT residents - but that’s unlikely,

4

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s9997 wrote

Affordable on a median Vermont wage would be a good measure. I think most federal agencies use 30% of gross income.

2

Scary-Respect8817 t1_j7ptg0g wrote

how about the same thing every city has ever done. build up. I know no one wants it, but that is the solution. It will happen eventually.

4

BudsKind802 t1_j7q8v94 wrote

Vermont doesn't have cities like other states do. And better housing needs to be a statewide issue, not just foisted on Burlington, Rutland, Bennington, etc.

1

beaveristired t1_j7vlh25 wrote

Lots of little towns with downtown / Main Street / central business district areas that could handle more density. I’m not talking condos, more like small starter homes on small lots.

2

naidim t1_j7pb8m6 wrote

Double property tax, triple homestead exemption. Making owning a second, third, and fourth house for AirBnB cost prohibitive.

3

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7qn0wt wrote

I don't see how this is fixable. Even if we build a ton of sprawl, locals will just be outbid in all cash offers.

3

contrary-contrarian t1_j7o1eo2 wrote

Call your legislators and ask them to support the housing bills that remove barriers to development in towns and villages.

Vote out the republican Governor that refuses to regulate short term rentals or even have a rental registry.

2

zombienutz1 t1_j7nxxpg wrote

At least suspend Act 250 for a bit to help move development forward. Material and labor costs have really gone up. Planned Unit developments should be encouraged to offer lower cost home ownership. I think there's existing state funding for ADUs but again, material and labor costs are high.

1

BudsKind802 t1_j7o1qqo wrote

PUDs lower the cost for the developer, but that isn't realized on the sale price enough to make much difference for the home buyer. And maybe through bonuses developers can squeeze a few extra single family houses, but that's not going to put a dent in the housing crisis.

Building more single family homes sprawled out is a large part of the issue, and Act 250 at least keeps some of that in check. We need denser housing options in downtime or growth areas and encouraging public transportation to those areas. Otherwise we continue with the same failed "trickle down" method we have now.

7

zombienutz1 t1_j7o6ke2 wrote

PUDs have lot size requirements and typically can't squeeze extra houses in or else they fall into a different zoning category that may not be available in that same area. I know several homeowners who have taken advantage of PUDs and added two 3-4 bedroom houses on 1/3 acre. Yeah, it may not make a big dent but there is no "all or nothing" solution so every bit counts.

Realistically all of the 1-2 bedroom apartments being built aren't needed as much as 3+ bedrooms. It doesn't allow for families to stick around here. Act 250 holds up development, increases costs of building, replacing a sign or something small on an existing structure can trigger Act 250 permitting. Yeah, a lot of developers suck but denser housing in downtowns, as you say, won't build itself.

2

BudsKind802 t1_j7o7g6a wrote

A number of towns in VT have PUD density bonus for reaching a better environmental practices, public good projects, and even for more open space.

Developers need a carrot and stick method to "encourage" them to build denser housing. Otherwise they will keep building homes out of the reach of most Vermonters.

1

HappilyhiketheHump t1_j7poa1p wrote

Because density has its own cost. Particularly waste water and storm water management.

Outside of the bigger towns, most of vermont doesn’t have the infrastructure for density.

1

Rogers_Ebert t1_j7r048h wrote

Make it easier and cheaper to build?

1

durpdurpturd t1_j7rgglz wrote

I have been looking for a large house to turn into a multi unit long term rental. Have looked in both Waterbury and Richmond. Found suitable properties that were large square foot residences in both towns, went into the town office and was told that zoning restrictions prevented them from ever being multi units… I’m not going to buy the property and start doing the work with the dream of changing the minds of some small town select board. The housing shortage is a frequent topic on here and nationally but change starts in small town government. Go to your local select board and ask about zoning. It’s boring to talk about but it’s a hodge podge around the state and it’s where some meaningful change happens and how smaller investors can become motivated.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7s9fk3 wrote

Nimbyism is one of the top two or three causes of this, for sure. Boomers pulled up the ladder on a lot of stuff.

2

Playingwithmyrod t1_j7sfiq7 wrote

Bottom line you need more apartments. Suck it up and build apartments in downtown areas. No one likes their downtown atmosphere "ruined" but the state is hurting and it's really the only fix.

1

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7qmv51 wrote

The interesting thing is if you walk around the garages of those new winooski buildings probably half the cars are out of state plates, usual suspects. Looks like college students but I'm not sure.

0

birdable t1_j7u805d wrote

Capitalism hurts sometime doesn’t it

0

TheMobyDicks t1_j7q4r3j wrote

3D printing of homes is the answer. Google to find out what Maine is doing.

−3

-_Stove_- t1_j7qn8pu wrote

Yes, a new way to let a robot dispense concrete is clearly the path forward! /s

2

TheMobyDicks t1_j7qpiuq wrote

Your snark has failed. In five years that's exactly what will be happening everywhere. And there'll be a ton more mediums than concrete. Maine is using wood flour and they're getting started now. This is being done SPECIFCALLY to increase affordable housing supply. The article can be found here: https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/11/23/3d-printed-houses-maine

UMaine unveils first 3D-printed home in a bid to mass-produce affordable housing

−2

-_Stove_- t1_j7qqaqk wrote

" Dagher said the lab is a long way away from producing 3D printed homes at a mass scale. This first prototype will sit outside for several months, and sensors will collect information about the impact of the cold, snow — and eventually heat and humidity — on the house. "

Five years? That's a pipe dream.

2

TheMobyDicks t1_j7qtji3 wrote

There are a very small number of companies and architectural firms offering 3D-printed houses, but it is possible to currently purchase and move into a 3D-printed house in the United States. Texas-based construction company ICON is one of the largest 3D-printing companies in the United States.

This was July last year. The reason it will work is as the technology develops the cost to build homes will drop precipitously. There is a company in New Hampshire that is printing a partial home next Wednesday in a bid to secure a contract to print around 40 homes with site work starting in the Fall. The same company has partnered with a construction company to create hybrid (partially 3D printed and partially traditional stick-built) homes.

Further, there is a bill proposed in NH right now that wants to give $5 million in funding to NHFFA to mete out for projects that use innovation to create entry-level homes that SPECIFICALLY names 3D printing. To wit:

I. The homeownership innovations fund shall be used by the authority to make grants and loans to eligible applicants for the purpose of fostering innovations in the development and financing of entry-level homes for owner occupancy.

II. The authority shall consider a wide range of alternatives and solutions to affordable entry-level homeownership, including such approaches as 3D printing of homes, low cost and highly sustainable sources of energy and energy efficiency, and other concepts that will provide New Hampshire homeowners with the most advanced and most affordable alternatives available.

Get onboard, bud. The future's here.

−1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7nyhec wrote

Just let the developers build. That's it, they'll fill the market need if government gets out of the way

−7

BudsKind802 t1_j7o5yxt wrote

It's simple to say that regulation is stopping more housing stock from being built. It's also not based in reality.

Developers are going to build what makes them the most money, which are high end single family homes. Even building an extra 500 homes without regulation isn't going to help do anything but create more opportunities for out of state investors and pad developers' pockets, which is exactly why they're the biggest proponents of deregulation.

17

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7kpt wrote

They'll build what the market demands. Maybe the market also needs more high end homes and those make the most so they'd be built first, however there's only so many people who can pay for those so that market would become saturated. You can make money building more affordable housing too so they'd do that also

−2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7o5uhw wrote

Developers will just make McMansions that nobody can afford if left to their own devices. There has to be some guidelines.

11

alienwarezftw t1_j7onci9 wrote

Developers will also suck you into a crap hoa where you own nothing.

10

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7p7v7m wrote

HOAs are good for multi-family housing like condos. Pretty lame for single family homes

0

alienwarezftw t1_j7pw2c8 wrote

HOAs are awful for anyone and very predatory please don’t make others think that’s it is somehow good at all

5

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7pxclu wrote

Sorry you had a bad experience. Like I said, they are good for multi-unit housing. Dues go towards fixing shared exterior structures like roofs, siding, garage doors, gutters, etc. Dues also cover maintenance of shared yards, parking lots, car ports, trash removal, etc.

−1

alienwarezftw t1_j7pydlf wrote

I didn’t have a bad experience in saying in general they are not good. They may have good intentions but money, greed, and companies create awful situations for people who can’t get out of their purchased condos

3

goldenlight18 t1_j7pi35g wrote

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/obstruction-zone-how-vermonts-land-use-regulations-impede-new-development-and-complicate-the-states-housing-crisis/Content?oid=35279122

Act 250 actually has discouraged good growth and made McMansions about the only thing you can build because a Mcmansion does not immediately trigger Act 250 or zoning issues... a few might but even then its a low barrier to clear because its one home instead of multiple.

2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7plfmt wrote

OK, but that is just part of the problem. I come from a part of the country without Act 250. All developers built there were McMansions because they generate large profit margins and people will buy them (often at their own financial peril). Removing Act 250 will just result in more sprawling overpriced McMansion developments because that is all developers will build. The free market doesn't want to build affordable housing.

3

GaleTheThird t1_j7pm92d wrote

> Developers will just make McMansions that nobody can afford if left to their own devices.

If no one could afford them, no one would build them. Instead the people who can afford those McMansions will just be outbidding everyone on the older housing stock that already exists

1

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7puzyd wrote

That's the thing though. Some people can afford the McMansions, they want the McMansions, and they will buy the McMansions. Can't build enough of them in Vermont to saturate the market for them. Turning the free market lose will do nothing for the people who need the most help in this situation.

6

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7sxr wrote

Nope, let them build those until it's no longer profitable (wouldn't be long in VT) then they'll move on to other housing types. The solution to a problem caused by government regulations is not more/different government regulations

−2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7p8slo wrote

That is a delusional outlook. Regulations/government are not the only cause of the housing situation. Big developers will just keep building McMansions that will get bought by investors to become high prices rentals. When was the last time you saw a development of affordable single family homes anywhere in the USA? The free market has not made affordable housing for decades.

6

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7plfq5 wrote

>Big developers will just keep building McMansions that will get bought by investors to become high prices rentals

That only happens until there's not enough people with enough money to rent or buy them. The last time I saw affordable rentals being built by developers was last year in Gainesville Florida where housing is significantly less expensive than Vermont and there is more supply than demand

2

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7plq0w wrote

We haven't reached that saturation point. Not even close. Nobody learned anything from the 2008 meltdown. Adjustable rate mortgages are even making a comeback.

How does the average income in Gainesville compare to the price of that "affordable" housing? Might not be affordable to the locals.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qu4au wrote

>We haven't reached that saturation point. Not even close.

Exactly, my point is we need to allow more building to occur if we want to drive down housing costs on the long term.

>How does the average income in Gainesville compare to the price of that "affordable" housing? Might not be affordable to the locals.

It's a university town with a huge hospital system supplying many good paying jobs

0

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7qup4b wrote

"It's a university town with a huge hospital system supplying many good paying jobs"

So? "Good paying" is relative to the region.

We will not hit a McMansion saturation point in Vermont before a large portion of the population is crushed and forced out of the state. Even then, it may never happen. You place too much faith in the free market.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qvygo wrote

>So? "Good paying" is relative to the region.

There's no housing crisis there so clearly it's working much better than here. You can rent a decent apartment there for 1/2 of what it would cost in Burlington, if you can even find one.

>We will not hit a McMansion saturation point in Vermont before a large portion of the population is crushed and forced out of the state. Even then, it may never happen. You place too much faith in the free market

You place too much faith in the government, which has never managed a housing market well. There's really not that many people who can afford a mcmansion in this state so I think it would shake out pretty quickly

0

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7qzgjx wrote

I never said I put my faith in the government. I just said don't trust the free market and the people/companies who dominate it. Especially not in this late stage of capitalism we are in. It is not an either/or situation.

I don't know enough about Gainesville to determine if you are actually making a point or not. Low cost of living and available housing could point to the area being undesirable as much as being better run. That's why I was asking about wages and cost of living. Detroit has a low cost of living and available housing too.

2

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7r0rzg wrote

>I never said I put my faith in the government

Then why do you want them to control everything?

I don't know the intricacies of VT vs Gainesville incomes etc but my point is I lived there and there's readily available multi unit housing for prices that residents can afford, and there's not a bunch of people desperately looking for housing they can barely afford

1

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7r17r4 wrote

Never said that. Is it really that binary for you? Solutions need to be collaborative in Vermont's case. Neither the free market alone or the government alone can solve this puzzle.

2

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7smtvf wrote

We've seen lots of government already and it's failed. Why would more work better?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p8g5y wrote

This is not accurate. The rental management market has been massively consolidated over the last 10-20 years. Statistically we don’t need that much more housing. But we do need prices to reflect costs, not be a conduit for maximum profit.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7plno2 wrote

So you're telling me that when there's more abundance of something the price doesn't go down? Also nothing in our economy reflects cost, it's all about profit.

2

BudsKind802 t1_j7q8avr wrote

Unlike what you may have learned in econ 101, the "free market" doesn't exist. Instead the market is unpredictable and tends to favor the rich. They just wave that off as externalities, but ultimately durable goods markets behave differently than widget markets.

3

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7pm79x wrote

I’m telling you that adding more supply doesn’t necessary lower costs when the price is controlled by what is essentially a cartel.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qtplq wrote

A Vermont housing cartel?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7s95je wrote

No. See the comment with sources. Read.

1

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7sm1l8 wrote

No thanks

0

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7tx18m wrote

If you don’t want to learn then don’t ask.

It’s a thing nationally as well over half of corporate owned rentals are managed by one software. They can and do inflate prices which drags up all rental prices nationally.

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7ugu2j wrote

And that constitutes a cartel in your mind?

1

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7uhf91 wrote

“an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition.”

Yes. Many corporate property owners using common software to set prices enabling prices to be artificially inflated certainly looks like a cartel.

Do you disagree? And if so why?

3

Ok-Title-270 t1_j81s8k3 wrote

I disagree because it's not that centralized and additionally is only able to happen because of government intervention

1