popquizmf

popquizmf t1_jac3bi5 wrote

Spent 20 years in Mass, 5 in Cali, 20 in Florida. Couple of takeaways from that experience:. You are correct. Southern conservatives make traditional NE republicans look mighty progressive. Boston gets shit for being racist, but baby, you ain't seen shit.

Ever see an effigy of a black man hanging from a noose on a gallows, in the back of a pick up with the words "Keep the Whitehouse White" above the gallows? No? Collier county Florida, circa 2011.

Fuck that state.

7

popquizmf t1_j887da2 wrote

No it's not an example of that. Where in all that description did we read about the other driver making a poor choice? We didn't. All we know is they came from the other side of the highway.

You may well be correct, and probably are. Let's not pretend that mechanical failure, tire failure etc can all cause accidents at no fault of the owner/driver.

−3

popquizmf t1_iz097ai wrote

Even more so if it's an old house. We paid 280k for a house in town, on town water/sewer but the house is 200 years old with 200 year old problems. The list of possible repairs is endless and the amount of money it would take is daunting.

For reference, we bought at 2.9% interest and we make about 120k between us. We live in eastern Vermont along the Connecticut river in the upper valley.

5

popquizmf t1_iyzojmx wrote

Depends on the forest. It's that simple, some mature forests, are great carbon reservoirs, but their ability to bring additional carbon in, is very limited. Other old growth forest continue to become more complex systems that can store more carbon.

All the research I went through as a grad student pointed to younger forests being better at sequestration. The bottom line is: the best carbon sinks are forests that don't exist yet. Allowing a field to go to forest is going to store more carbon over 100 years than any other option.

3

popquizmf t1_iyocnym wrote

Reply to comment by vases in I miss Vermont so much by immersedinideas

I hear that. An equivalent position to mine in other states would get me at least a 50% pay raise. If I went west coast my wife and I could double our salaries.

All that is to say that we moved here and paid too much for a house but both were able to obtain reach jobs for ourselves. The pay is the same as my last job, so I didnt take a hit and neither did the wife.

It's been... Wonderful moving here. I wish I could enjoy the outside more, but that'll come once the amazing folks at the white river junction VA get me fixed up.

The only negative here is the night driving and short days in the winter. The rest has been great. My kids loooove it here. I'm so glad I came back to New England, and specifically the upper valley in VT.

1

popquizmf t1_iycxray wrote

You know, I don't think you seem to understand that the housing crisis is not a Vermont thing, nor is it the worst in Vermont. Also, and this may be hard to understand, but people who move here, are Vermonters. You can call us whatever nonsense name you feel you need to, but you are no different than the people complaining the last time Vermont had an influx of people.

At least the people moving here want to be here, which is more than I can say for some "Vermonters".

1

popquizmf t1_iy33onm wrote

You lack imagination. If you only double the tax, sure, demand won't really be impacted. You need to go all in and realize that for many rich folk, the tax won't matter, but for anyone who isn't loaded, it will be prohibitive. Use all those extra tax funds to create actual high density, lower income housing.

We are approaching 25% of all sales being investment properties. Do you know why that is? Outside of the investment that's happening around the country, VT is going to be one of the best places for climate change in the US. We need to make property available to lower income folks now, because a real wave of rich people are coming, and it will be like nothing seen before.

By 2050 sea level rise is anticipated to be a 1'+. The amount of people soon to be displaced in unimaginable. We need to act now if we want this state to survive with it's current look/feel. Otherwise, the money will start to flow, and once it gets going this state will change faster that a pit crew changes tires.

36

popquizmf t1_ivej0nz wrote

Because then your treating every problem with a hammer? AirBnBs aren't the problem, it's most AirBnBs that are the problem. People who convert part of their home, or make a yurt on their land to rent, those people are not the problem, and your "just ban it!" Attitude isn't specific enough. That's why tax incentives work better when done well. Make owning a second he here very soon expensive tax wise, and use all that extra tax money to subsidize affordable housing and rentals. Your method does nothing. It opens the floodgate of real estate because now people have to sell their second homes. Inventories skyrocket, prices for everyone tank, and we haven't figured out how to help fund affordable rentals/homes.

If people want to buy second homes here, let them, but make them pay taxes through the nose to help everyone else. It's not like the average Vermonter can afford the 500k+ homes these people are buying.

5