Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3tcev wrote

Reply to comment by thisoneisnotasbad in Why can't vermont tax Airnbn by Old_Ad_1301

Can I ask you to elaborate on why we simply cannot repurpose the condos in Stowe? If we were putting people and their inherent value over making a profit there’s no good reason not to repurpose units such as those is there?

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy3xtk1 wrote

Sure. There is no public transport to and from the mountain condo blocks. How would people leave the condo enclave. You would need to put a public transport system in place.

Who manages the grounds in that situation. Would you still expect Stowe to be responsible for all that work at it's current level without the income the condos produce.

You would also destroy a local economy. This is extrapolation but hear me out. 1000 homeless people move to Stowe. The mountain looses business. The local economy based on the service sector of wealthy tourists is crushed. Locals loose their job as business close or downsize.

All those are valid reasons to not fill the condos at Stowe with homeless people.

The value of the units goes low, the Town of Stowe cant afford the level of services due to decreased tax collection and the town school and infrastructure suffer.

I guess the general idea is sticking people in housing without addressing any of the root causes for homeless is not that useful. Everyone deserves shelter so they don't freeze. That is not what you are proposing though.

3

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3z0fj wrote

Those are fair points. I’m not saying ending homelessness is a simple issue with an easy answer, and I do not claim to hold the solution, but again, if we put people’s lives over dollar amounts, it’s possible. Complex, difficult, but possible. For example, lack of public transport can be addressed. If people get homes/shelter, then they are far more likely to be able to save money and therefore patronize local businesses. Since realistically not every houseless individual or family would be given housing in stow, that would allow for certain dwellings being allotted for tourism, and wealthy patrons would still spend their money there.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy3zy5n wrote

Right, but now you have started a project where the housing part is only a small part of the whole. If you were to do that, why not invest in actual affordable housing in places that need it instead of take existing stock. Why take 1000 units on stowe for people who want housing in Burlington? Why not just build cheap dense housing in Burlington funded by a higher tax on secondary homes.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy40aay wrote

You’re exactly right, why not? What I was doing was responding to the hypothetical you posed. As far as what I’m proposing— what I’ve been proposing here is housing the homeless. That’s not all I’m proposing, though it’s all I’ve mentioned. Of course we need to address the root causes of homelessness. So many are unsheltered because the state and the system are broken and have failed them. Housing them is one of myriad issues contributing to it. I fully agree with taxing secondary homes and building more affordable housing projects in places like Burlington.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy44qna wrote

Housing and shelter are not the same thing.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy450yt wrote

I’m aware of this. Those who are unsheltered are typically unhoused, I thought that was evident.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy4aywl wrote

You switched from housing to shelter in your post so I wanted to level set on what was being discussed.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy4e63t wrote

I thought I had been encompassing, maybe I had not made that clear.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy61py1 wrote

I think disagree on a core level. I agree shelter is a “right” and we as a society can not let people die on the streets because they have nowhere to go. I think housing is a privileged and redistribution of it is a general “bad idea”

0

garden_ofaedan t1_iy61yu9 wrote

How is every person having housing a “bad idea”? Housing itself is a human right.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy65qck wrote

I never said that. Not sure if you intentionally misunderstood or not so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I said shelter is a human right.

Housing is a privilege.

Distributing existing housing this is a bad idea.

0

garden_ofaedan t1_iy6kk3f wrote

Can you please explain why, to you, housing is a privilege? Here was my line of thought with my last comment: you believe housing is a privilege and believing redistribution of housing is a “bad idea”, ergo by that logic, you think housing everyone is a “bad idea”.

1

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy7ongg wrote

Again, not sure if you are intentionally misunderstanding or not. You continue to focus on the wrong part of my statement. Housing everyone is a great idea. Doing so via a redistribution of private property is a “bad idea”. Did that help?

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy87ys4 wrote

Not quite. I’m failing to understand why redistribution is a hangup for you. From each according to ability, to each according to need— everyone needs housing, no one actually needs to own a second dwelling, especially left unoccupied. Rent control could also do a lot of good. Our society has failed the most vulnerable of us. Redistribution, while only one idea, does not seem like a bad one at all.

1

Loosh_03062 t1_iy5v1y5 wrote

Add to that the simple issue that the unoccupied condos are still private property, and they can't be summarily taken over and repurposed as shelters without going through a very long and very expensive eminent domain battle, which the government would likely lose by the time things made it through the state and likely federal court systems. Same with any other tourist/second/snowbird homes. A place isn't "available" just because it was empty when the Census Bureau did its nose count.

1

whys0brave t1_iy7ufe4 wrote

Well I think the idea would have to be that they couldn't just house homeless people who aren't working. What if people moved to an affordable part of Stowe and then worked for the city in a system where the city basically benefits from having the people there. If they can work to improve the area and live for a reduced cost of living then they would be able to afford a vehicle and wound not need to rely on public transportation. Or create a system of public transportation and have some of the people who move in to the area be the people who drive and fix the machines. As someone who recently bought a house in Milton and who works in Stowe I have to say that my 1 hour each way drive is one of the quickest commutes of us at my company. I have people driving an hour and a half each way to come work in Stowe and afford to live so far away. Why would business close if more people moved there? My business gross sales today were $200 in stowe and rent cost $500 a day. I have to lay more people off in the morning (which is why I'm not sleeping right now)

1