Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j8m9ktd wrote

Reply to comment by idreamofchickpea in How Vermont’s Housing Crisis Got So Bad by punkthesystem

5th generation Vermonter. My father worked in land development all his life (45+ years), and so have l (35+ years- land surveying/civil engineering; permitting and now that I have become too old to get my hands dirty, title examination).

I can confidently say that Act 250 had been the BIGGEST obstacle to reasonable housing development in this state we have encountered throughout the entirety of our careers. I have personally witnessed HUNDREDS of reasonable development projects that were killed because of Act 250 since the early 2000s alone. That number is likely in the thousands of you include not only my time but also my father's time in land development back to Act 250's inception in 1970. It had effectively killed off all single-family-home development in our industry (except for the very wealthy) by the 90s.

This article is probably the best and most accurate description I have seen to describe how Act 250 continuously allows development to be stopped in it's tracks by folks who are uninformed and unqualified in making ANY decisions about proper land development, and who use Act 250 as either a NIMBY, political, and/or social weapon instead of how it was originally intended (to keep the ski-towns from over- developing UP the mountains). Now Act 250 stops development EVERYWHERE, because ass-hats (like the JP Morgan retiree running for S.Burlington council in this article) have figured out how to manipulate it for their own ends and, in it's present form, Act 250 doesn't allow any developers or municipalities to push back against someone's bullshit NIMBY claims in any amount of reasonable time enough for a developer not to lose significant amounts of $$. In short, Act 250 is a perfect tool for those that have already built their homes to keep others from doing the same... Only the very wealthy have the means to build new anymore. Act 250 is in MAJOR need of reform, period.

Also, as far as suburbs being "grotesque" goes: If developers didn't have to spend such an extraordinary amount of their budgets on permitting and nefarious lawsuits brought against them, then they would be able to invest more in aesthetic construction that would eliminate those repetitive, "cookie-cutter" neighborhood/housing designs in favor of more variety of construction within the same development. For example, if you could see what the original designs for all those condos/ apts that were built along Dorset and Spear Streets in the last 25 years instead of what was actually built, it would break your heart... The original designs were absolutely beautiful, involving a variety of multiple architects designs, green spaces, etc., but permitting costs forced the budget to kill aesthetic development, and now it looks like repetitive "sprawl" there instead of some beautiful neighborhoods, and those developers were lucky to be able to afford to even build that after all the permitting was all said and done.

39

mrgrey772 t1_j8mrvot wrote

I have a client who can’t even build a modest home on spear st. For less than 4 million.

7

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8n87p9 wrote

I think your client and the rest of the world have different opinions on the word "modest"

14

[deleted] t1_j8ncd44 wrote

I am not sure, but I think mrgrey's point was maybe that what once only cost a few hundred thousand to build now costs in the millions... Certainly still not talking about a middle-income single family home perhaps, but the cost to build a comparable home to what already exists on Spear Street is far-and-away above what it used to cost even as recently as a decade ago.

4

idreamofchickpea t1_j8ms5uo wrote

This is really good insight, thanks for sharing. Do you object to multi-unit dwellings generally or just the aesthetics of the ones that have been built? They seem like a logical option for people who don’t want a big house (elderly, young).

I’ve never seen a beautiful suburb myself, even when the houses are pretty. Not being a snob at all. It’s just a really inefficient allocation of space.

3

[deleted] t1_j8mtv75 wrote

I have absolutely no objection to multi-unit dwellings and even multi-purpose dwellings, which help make suburbs more pleasing and efficient. The neighborhoods I grew up here in VT used to have a lot of houses with multiple apartments and some even with "Mom and Pop" stores in them, mixed right in between the single family unit homes. You could walk around the corner for basic groceries and household supplies instead of having to drive across town. Those places also provided the much missed and necessary "third places" for folks to hang out front and socialize... Those are the things that create neighborhoods instead of suburbs. I would love to see housing development in Vermont based on those aesthetics again!

5

mojitz t1_j8n65fc wrote

One of my favorite apartments ever was actually a big, grey Maoist apartment block in China. It wasn't much to look at, and obviously didn't have any sort of high end fit and finish, but there were little shops and hole-in-the-wall restaurants and the like on the street-facing side of the bottom level and the whole thing was built to enclose a central courtyard on 3 sides where people would hang out or bump into each other and shoot the shit or whatever. It really felt in a lot of ways like a proper neighborhood in spite of being right in the middle of a massive city.

3

mrgrey772 t1_j8niaz0 wrote

There is a middle ground to this I promise you. Doesn’t have to be the elites in their Single families versus massive commie blocks.

3

mojitz t1_j8nk448 wrote

Sure. Nobody here is suggesting we, like, demolish all existing housing and force everyone to move into apartment blocks constructed exactly with the architecture they used under the Soviet Union or Maoist China. I'm just pointing out that people tend to write off those housing units because they don't look pretty, when the reality is that there are some significant upsides to actually living in them.

Fact of the matter is that social housing can and does work and has been an extremely effective tool for alleviating housing shortages all over the world (including quite a few capitalist nations in the modern day, by the way). You just have to do it right and build with the intention of fostering diverse communities rather than warehousing the poor out of sight as we did here in the States in a prior era.

0

[deleted] t1_j8nbgij wrote

It sounds delightful! Almost like an oasis within the "desert" of the city. :)

1

mojitz t1_j8nckz5 wrote

That's definitely going a bit too far haha, but it's not totally off the mark and a little tiny bit more spent on maintenance and some greenery could have really pushed it over the edge.

1

Intru t1_j8v20f6 wrote

There's way of stoping suburbs and promoting sustainable communities that grow. Act 250 is a barrier but never trust a developers, lot size maximums and up zoning all single family zones to allow for up to 4 units. Allow soft commercial and edu in all residential zones. Have developers cover the maintenance of road and water infrastructure in developments of given size for up to 10 years so they have to cover the first cycle of maintenance. Remove parking minimums, lot size mins, floor area ratios, allow for single access blocks, ban drive thrus, ban street facing parking lots, require all commercial to have main entries to be street facing, etc, etc.

2

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j8mhsng wrote

I'd say it's working as designed, to slow growth and preserve the state environment. Unpopular opinion but adding thousands of units of housing would ruin the place.

−6

[deleted] t1_j8mixek wrote

After a lifetime of seeing Act 250's implementation, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. There are PLENTY of areas where housing could be developed that would be beneficial. Like anything else, with proper planning and implementation, you can easily preserve aesthetic and environmental protection. Making a blanket-statement that adding housing "would ruin this place" is disingenuous and uninformed.

17

EscapedAlcatraz t1_j8mjb75 wrote

That's why I labeled this as "opinion". Having lived and worked in dozens of out of state areas, and traveled to hundreds of others, I'd call it an informed opinion. There are plenty of crowded, noisy, dirty communities in the U.S. One Vermont.

−3

wholeWheatButterfly t1_j8nbmls wrote

I think it's way too easy to be scared by the prospect of new housing units. As was explained really well in the article, it would take WAY more new housing units than is needed in order to reach just a fraction of the population density of overcrowdedness in areas like NJ or CA. It's a gross miscalculation in perception to think that a few thousand more units across the state will have any significant impact on the amount of nature to enjoy in VT.

3

o08 t1_j8mkqd7 wrote

Totally agree. Without Act 250 the natural beauty of VT would be ruined. Act 250 is the only thing keeping large development from going crazy. Around me a big developer wanted to expand a airport runway which would have destroyed over 12 vernal pools and wetlands. The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in. Luckily Act 250 stopped that expansion.

My other neighbor wanted to build 146 short term rentals with one parking spot per 3-4 bedroom rental. That didn’t fly either because of Act250.

That same developer has to fix 2 streams that can’t support aquatic life due to their prior construction work. No remediation would be happening without Act 250. Thank god it is the law of the land.

If towns don’t want Act250 determining smaller development then they only need to adopt local zoning regulations. That makes the thresholds to trigger Act250 jurisdiction way higher, ie 10 house/lot subdivisions or more.

−3

[deleted] t1_j8mm5rv wrote

I also think that Act 250 is necessary for environmental protection. However, Act 250 as it stands is also greatly in need of reform. Too often it is misused to stop reasonable, well-planned and necessary development. There are plenty of places in this state where affordable, middle income housing could've been built without hurting the environment, which was stopped by the misuse and abuse of Act 250. I don't think Act 250 should be repealed: I think it needs to be reformed to keep people from abusing it for their own personal agendas.

13

[deleted] t1_j8mviov wrote

Unfortunately, the State is introducing legislation that aims to take away individual towns rights to implement their own zoning laws. Also, the nuances of Act 250 allow for a lot more triggers than only lot amounts/ sizes. Most of the politicians that control Act 250 and Zoning regs, both municipal and at State level, are not qualified to be making any judgements on environmental protections and development: It is especially in that regard that I think our processes need reform. Too many unqualified people are able to access and manipulate well-intentioned rules/guidelines beyond what they were originally intended for, without proper vetting.

EDIT: I don't think your post should be getting downvoted o08: You make some good points and it seems like we are having a healthy discussion. Usually folks are just screaming at each other in here, so Thank you for the pleasant dialogue! :)

7

KingKababa t1_j8njbu8 wrote

Any idea what the anti-self-deterministic zoning legislation is called?

Edit: ie the name of the bill.

3

[deleted] t1_j8nlo22 wrote

Here are some articles on the subject:

https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2023-01-19/hoping-to-boost-housing-stock-vt-lawmakers-go-after-zoning-rules

​

https://vtdigger.org/2023/01/17/to-tackle-the-housing-crisis-vermont-lawmakers-consider-ending-single-family-zoning/

​

I believe they are s.226 and s.234. Links to the PDFs docs from the State website below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjww6SLgJj9AhUfEFkFHWMBB7sQFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.vermont.gov%2FDocuments%2F2022%2FDocs%2FBILLS%2FS-0226%2FS-0226%2520As%2520Passed%2520by%2520Both%2520House%2520and%2520Senate%2520Official.pdf&usg=AOvVaw18I1mapqbujrjf_8nlUAE8

​

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjww6SLgJj9AhUfEFkFHWMBB7sQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegislature.vermont.gov%2FDocuments%2F2022%2FDocs%2FBILLS%2FS-0234%2FS-0234%2520As%2520Passed%2520by%2520Both%2520House%2520and%2520Senate%2520Official.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3pXF5ZyOzjd2XWnkN4LhZ6

3

mrgrey772 t1_j8mxw53 wrote

12 vernal pools and 1 wetland sounds fine to me.

2

[deleted] t1_j8n4tf5 wrote

Me too! :)

I also think that it's possible to have a neighborhood nearby that could be properly designed not to impact those pools and wetlands while also allowing people the benefit of being able to enjoy their beauty and provide the opportunity to learn why they are necessary and need to be protected.

1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8n82v4 wrote

> Around me a big developer wanted to expand a airport runway which would have destroyed over 12 vernal pools and wetlands. The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in. Luckily Act 250 stopped that expansion.

wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. neat.

−1

[deleted] t1_j8nfbpg wrote

Aw, no need to be mean here; we are all just having a discussion. :)

I am a HUGE critic of Act 250, but I still think it is necessary- exactly for reasons like o08's example: We do have a duty to protect our natural habitats /resources in Vermont to the absolute best of our ability. If we all work together, we can often have the best of both- preservation and development.

I believe all of our boats can and should rise with the tide of progress: It just takes more of us willing to work together instead of always trying to chop each other down.

1

[deleted] t1_j8n9ex5 wrote

[deleted]

0

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nff7u wrote

"a large developer" wanted to expand the runway... meaning VTrans proposed expanding it... something tells me you didn't get this news straight from the horses mouth:

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/aviation/documents/VASP_Draft_020421.pdf

and also:

> The runway was totally unnecessary for the planes he was bringing in.

bullshit. it's a 3,300 foot runway. that's too short for 99% of jets and many turboprops to safely land and takeoff from. those airplanes bring in far, far more money than the tiny little bugsmashers that can currently land there. for example, you could fly a little cessna 172 for ten hours a day and you'd maybe burn 80 gallons of fuel. most jets burn hundreds of gallons an HOUR, plus there's generally other services they'd need that small piston singles wouldn't. literally one single jet landing there one time per week will be the majority of your business lol.

I don't think you're very well educated on this subject, and that casts doubt on the rest of your claims as well.

1

[deleted] t1_j8nnv7v wrote

[deleted]

−1

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nost4 wrote

evidence?

−1

[deleted] t1_j8nvwxr wrote

[deleted]

0

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8nxvel wrote

> The previous Vtrans aviation director was fired

direct from your article, he resigned

> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.

lol what are you talking about? this happened in 2016-2017. i just linked you VTrans' report that specifically mentions extending the runway for Caledonia in 2020.

you have a weird mishmash of beliefs that are based on half-truths. you should not be nearly so confident. this article does more to prove you wrong than right.

−1

[deleted] t1_j8nzvef wrote

[deleted]

2

KITTYONFYRE t1_j8p2i4h wrote

> I never mentioned anything about Caledonia and that is your own singleminded idea that the development I am talking about refers to what is in your mind. There are multiple projects throughout the state that take place over many years of time.

what are you talking about then? direct quote:

> Oh yeah, he was fired for that after the 5000 ft runway was denied and he was exposed.

northeast kingdom's 5,000 ft runway went through, it was never in doubt. caledonia is the only one with a short runway that was considered to be expanded, and that's a current problem.

1