Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Azr431 t1_j9pdzfd wrote

Eliminating single family zoning exclusivity is a big barrier removal.

46

Galadrond t1_j9sse6x wrote

We can definitely house folks without compromising VT’s forests so long as we densify and use land that has already been developed upon.

10

kellogsmalone t1_ja2u1w2 wrote

Mixed use is a great solution that also preserves the character of town centers.

2

cpujockey t1_j9vitvz wrote

> We can definitely house folks without compromising VT’s forests so long as we densify and use land that has already been developed upon.

actually there's good lumber in those forests which make incredible guitars, furniture and other products.

Vermont Maple and Walnut is by far the highest quality wood for musical instruments I have ever had the pleasure of working with. We also have other species that folks find ideal for instruments.

I am not saying cut down the forests, but I am saying that it wouldn't hurt to take down a few acres here and there to build up some more rural living areas or even carve out a good plot for infrastructure projects like broad band.

1

Glad-Palpitation292 t1_j9qguv1 wrote

They should eliminate 5 and 10 acre zoning, as well.

9

kellogsmalone t1_ja2u3zv wrote

Tell me about this zoning.

1

Glad-Palpitation292 t1_ja2x6cs wrote

What, five and ten acre zoning? It's a type of zoning district that only allows one house on each 5 or 10 acre parcel, respectively. If you want country roads lined with million dollar "rustic modern" post and beam houses (you know, the ones built to look like old farmhouses connected to a barn, so they put red siding on the attached three car garage) and that are owned by people from other states, it's the best way to do it. By setting the acreage requirements so high, it eliminates entry level houses, because the lots themselves go for $150,000 before you've broken ground for a foundation.

It's also really inefficient from a tax perspective. First, because the houses are fewer and further between, there is a smaller tax base, even though individual houses are more valuable. Second, even while 5 and 10 acre zoned houses are highly dispersed, their owners still need municipal services, which take more effort to provide and are therefore more expensive.

There's also the Current Use program to discuss, which is its own huge problem for affordability. But you asked about zoning.

1

kellogsmalone t1_ja31wo5 wrote

Good to know. I personally would love to rehab an actual farmhouse with 5-10 acres but I assume that would be a bit different than what you described. I actually want to homestead and have some livestock. This zoning sound more like these pseudo mcmansion style developments that seem rural because they're sparsely distributed given the acreage but sure look like subdivisions.

1