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.

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

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

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

BudsKind802 t1_j7o1qqo wrote

Replying to zombienutz1 (#1,750,742)

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

BudsKind802 t1_j7o5yxt wrote

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,750,777)

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

zombienutz1 t1_j7o6ke2 wrote

Replying to BudsKind802 (#1,750,957)

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

Replying to zombienutz1 (#1,751,170)

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

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

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

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7p3u3b wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,232)

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

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

Hellrazor32 t1_j7p5lnp wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,232)

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

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

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7p73xu wrote

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,752,416)

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

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7kpt wrote

Replying to BudsKind802 (#1,751,142)

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

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p7rsk wrote

Replying to RamaSchneider (#1,752,134)

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

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

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7p7sxr wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,751,136)

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

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7p8g5y wrote

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,750,777)

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

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

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7p8slo wrote

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,752,604)

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

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

naidim t1_j7pb8m6 wrote

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

3

idreamofchickpea t1_j7pfwfe wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,232)

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

thesbaine t1_j7phtyy wrote

Replying to Hellrazor32 (#1,752,498)

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

goldenlight18 t1_j7phxhd wrote

Replying to RamaSchneider (#1,752,134)

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

goldenlight18 t1_j7pi35g wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,751,136)

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

Hellrazor32 t1_j7piy8f wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,558)

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

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

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

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7plfmt wrote

Replying to goldenlight18 (#1,753,196)

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

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7plfq5 wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,752,665)

>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

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,753,399)

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

GaleTheThird t1_j7pm92d wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,751,136)

> 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

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

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7puzyd wrote

Replying to GaleTheThird (#1,753,442)

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

Jerry_Williams69 t1_j7pxclu wrote

Replying to alienwarezftw (#1,753,989)

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

TheMobyDicks t1_j7q4r3j wrote

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

−3

Loudergood t1_j7q7l67 wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,232)

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

BudsKind802 t1_j7q8avr wrote

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,753,409)

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

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7qd4wc wrote

Replying to Loudergood (#1,754,642)

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

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qlcdk wrote

Replying to EscapedAlcatraz (#1,755,293)

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_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

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

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qnxlb wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,755,496)

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

mattgm1995 t1_j7qp8le wrote

Replying to Commercial_Case_7475 (#1,755,543)

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

TheMobyDicks t1_j7qpiuq wrote

Replying to -_Stove_- (#1,755,509)

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

Replying to TheMobyDicks (#1,755,630)

" 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

Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j7qrhr7 wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,755,619)

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

TheMobyDicks t1_j7qtji3 wrote

Replying to -_Stove_- (#1,755,656)

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_j7qu4au wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,753,414)

>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

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,755,818)

"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

mattgm1995 t1_j7qvvlw wrote

Replying to Commercial_Case_7475 (#1,755,715)

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

Ok-Title-270 t1_j7qvygo wrote

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,755,846)

>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

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,755,912)

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

Replying to Jerry_Williams69 (#1,756,100)

>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

thisoneisnotasbad t1_j7rg0vy wrote

Replying to Loudergood (#1,756,434)

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

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_j7rhaxl wrote

Replying to MYrobouros (#1,752,504)

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rhs3w wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,756,855)

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

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,756,903)

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

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,756,974)

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

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,756,998)

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_j7rm0hv wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,757,088)

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rmsz7 wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,757,128)

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

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,757,143)

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

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,757,159)

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

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,757,184)

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

mattgm1995 t1_j7rot1k wrote

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,757,221)

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

Hellrazor32 t1_j7rt9m0 wrote

Replying to GreenPL8 (#1,757,186)

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_j7rwefb wrote

Replying to Commercial_Case_7475 (#1,755,543)

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rwsrv wrote

Replying to thisoneisnotasbad (#1,752,232)

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7rx1ny wrote

Replying to thesbaine (#1,753,176)

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

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7s9myp wrote

Replying to HappilyhiketheHump (#1,754,530)

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

hippiepotluck t1_j7samqi wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,755,496)

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

mattgm1995 t1_j7sbbig wrote

Replying to hippiepotluck (#1,758,233)

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

buildandgrow t1_j7scjmj wrote

Replying to GreenPL8 (#1,757,126)

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

hippiepotluck t1_j7sf384 wrote

Replying to mattgm1995 (#1,758,264)

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

Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j7sf75o wrote

Replying to Hellrazor32 (#1,757,416)

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

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_j7sggl7 wrote

Replying to hippiepotluck (#1,758,233)

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

birdable t1_j7u805d wrote

Capitalism hurts sometime doesn’t it

0

SomeConstructionGuy t1_j7uhf91 wrote

Replying to Ok-Title-270 (#1,761,583)

“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

mattgm1995 t1_j7vg9o2 wrote

Replying to Syncope7 (#1,763,536)

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

goldenlight18 t1_j841vr7 wrote

Replying to Necessary_Cat_4801 (#1,758,423)

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