Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

amhais OP t1_jdh3xn3 wrote

Reply to comment by Macbookaroniandchez in The 'Airbnbust' proves the Wild West days of online vacation rentals are over by amhais

I don’t know about everyone else but I’ve got no issue with most second home owners. I get that it also represents housing stock “taken away from locals”, but generally they’re around the resorts or tourist-centric towns like Manchester, Woodstock, etc. On top of that they presumably bought a vacation home here because they love the area, plan to spend time here, and care about the community while spending money at our local businesses.

My issue is with buying single family homes, particularly those in regular-ass neighborhoods, as part of some get rich quick scheme or as “an investment”.

3

[deleted] t1_jdi59sa wrote

[deleted]

4

amhais OP t1_jdiyxy3 wrote

That’s a very fair proposal.

I don’t agree that second home ownership is immoral, as someone who regularly encounters homeless folks traveling for work I sincerely doubt that most of them would be buying homes even if they were cheap. Mental health care is the major need there.

But yeah, having them pay more to support the area is certainly fair. The counterargument is that they don’t consume local services like schools, EMS, fire, etc. but meh, I still think it makes sense to pay a bit more. Maybe to subsidize small businesses in the area or something, I don’t know what the right answer is.

3

purged6 t1_jdqs9b3 wrote

Does VT not have a homestead tax law? Where I live you get a tax break if your property is your primary residence. Granted I doubt it is a big enough burden for it to be a deterrent to multiple property owners but at least it's something.

2