Comments
zombienutz1 t1_jdfbqj4 wrote
Stick it to em. Just saw a fresh on in Winooski for $450/night and it's booked out. Fuck that person.
Twombls t1_jdfi44o wrote
Hopefully winooski enacts a ban similar to burlington
bluepied t1_jdh6utn wrote
Come on out to Malletts Bay…we have dozens of AirBnB’s ranging from $250/night for a tiny house to this ugly Tetris-piece house for $1200/night LOL. Someone just gutted this one across the street from the lake renting for $800/night. It’s nothing but MA, NY and NJ plates out here all summer.
hideous-boy t1_jdhqbe3 wrote
holy shit the $1200/night one is booked out for two months. The greed of these people is absurd
poopooparoo t1_jdktth8 wrote
>holy shit the $1200/night one is booked out for two months. The greed of these people is absurd
Was this built were all those vermonters got kicked out of their homes because they build them on leased land?
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jdh5e8f wrote
The ones that rented it?
ChocolateDiligent t1_jdzo2pp wrote
You can’t entirely place blame on people who are doing this unless you completely ignore the conditions that allow it. Shame on us for not getting regulations together sooner. And this is in no way a substitution for more housing, and will have little impact on the housing market even if those renters decide to get out of the rental game and sell.
meinblown t1_jdfu0d2 wrote
Yeah capitalism is the worst! /s
Pctechguy2003 t1_jdg3z2x wrote
The way late stage capitalism works is basically like those comical snowballs going down a hill and getting bigger and bigger.
There is a disproportionate amount of money. And Im not talking about that person who owns part of a town and has tens of million of dollars… Im talking about the ultra rich. Look back into what people like John Rockefeller did…. He crafted the school system to prevent people from really working for themselves and instead wanted people to work for him. People like that craft an entire society into what they want so they can reap the benefits.
Its a late stage capitalism is a sad system when you look at it. We are not far from the dystopian futures they show in movies.
GrittyPrettySitty t1_jdhk8md wrote
... yes?
meinblown t1_jdhkrd9 wrote
Hey, I agree, $450 a night is ridiculous, but if you have people willing to pay that, go for it!
GrittyPrettySitty t1_jefsbhy wrote
Exactly. You are just making my point.
meinblown t1_jeg449f wrote
I'm sorry you are not in a position to sell something you worked hard for, for $450 a night I guess...
redfreedomusofa t1_jdfgdri wrote
Umm, good for them.
Twombls t1_jdfi2jn wrote
Nah fuckem
ichigo841 t1_jdhjex2 wrote
I wish financial ruin on all these Tiktok landleeches.
Whop-Dangle t1_jdfpphb wrote
Brave Little State recently did a great piece on VT AirBnB’s that everyone should read. Basically, AirBnB’s only account for 3% of VT’s available housing while 2nd family vacation homes take up 17% of all available housing. The biggest communities affected in VT are near ski resorts, which is no surprise. The real culprit in VT is that building is not keeping up with demand, and act 250 might be the biggest culprit: https://www.vermontpublic.org/podcast/brave-little-state/2023-03-09/how-many-airbnbs-are-taking-away-from-vermonters-its-complicated
DaddyBobMN t1_jdfqw4z wrote
The few folks who have been saying this keep getting shouted down by the frothy-mouthed masses.
Folks gonna believe whatever makes it easier to support their viewpoint and direct their anger.
[deleted] t1_jdi4ah0 wrote
[deleted]
therealrico t1_jdg3pnm wrote
As I a former host I was always skeptical of Airbnb impact on the city. There is no doubt it didn’t help, but I think it’s impact was far overstated. The inability to build enough housing to keep up demand has been a problem far earlier than 2012 when Airbnb really started to grow in the area. I recall seeing an old news clipping from the 80’s when Bernie was the mayor complaining about a lack of affordable housing.
dillydally85 t1_jdhfvf2 wrote
UVM not providing housing is definitely the biggest problem with the rental market in Burlington. But at it's peek there were 300+ Airbnb listings in Burlington (To be fair that number has dropped dramatically in the last couple years) That's a huge number of unavailable mostly lower cost apartments. Imagine a 300 unit complex being built somewhere in the old north end. That would be a TON of housing.
therealrico t1_jdi1jd4 wrote
So here’s the problem with that 300, what does that mean? Is it entire homes? Private rooms? Total combined listings? Are these owner occupied or dedicated Airbnb listings? Why is this important? I’ll use my old listings as an example.
I created 4 separate listings for my house. 1 listing was to rent the entire home, and usually I’d go stay with my parents. The other 3 were private room rentals. Now the way I did it I don’t think it is common, but if there were other hosts doing it, that can potentially skew the numbers. Also in my house case, me stopping doesn’t necessarily result in increase of housing as I’m not renting out the rooms to long term tenants.
I also think owner occupied examples such as my own are a net gain for the city. There isn’t enough hotel rooms , and a ton of people are priced out regardless. Having cheaper options means more people can visit, equals more money. I collected rooms and meals tax and paid the city, the money I earned stays here versus the Hilton or other large chains. The people will also spend the money at local businesses.
I also for two years rented out a studio and put it on Airbnb. In that case I agree it shouldn’t be allowed. That is a text book reason that contributes in a negative way to the housing shortage.
So I believe Airbnb can be a good thing, but also agree it should be regulated in an intelligent way.
I will also add, I considered buying properties for Airbnb and I couldn’t make the numbers work in a way I thought was worth it. And this was back in 2015, when prices were high but not stupidly high. If anyone purchased around here for the sole reason to Airbnb, I bet they aren’t making as much of a profit as they thought they would.
Manchves t1_jdh5kyb wrote
We wanted to build on land we owned 5 years ago. Market was all out of whack with construction costs and it made building impossible as a house that would cost 325k to build would only be worth 200k. Bank would only give a loan on what the house would be worth, so the other 125k would need to be cash in addition to the down payment. Not sure how it is now but back then unless you had a truck full of cash to just throw into a fire, you couldn’t build in our area.
Mother_Willow1095 t1_jdfvvh7 wrote
Im curious what percent of vacant homes are owned by investors and being warehoused to build a supply crunch to keep prices high.
FourteenthCylon t1_jdg1pu3 wrote
Virtually none. Property taxes and upkeep guarantee that that's a losing strategy in the long term. Despite the covid-era spikes in real estate prices, house prices here aren't going up fast enough to justify buying houses and keeping them empty in the hopes of selling them for a profit later. Empty houses here are empty because their owners only live in them for two months a year, or because they're in bad condition and are more or less abandoned.
Back in 2005 people in some real estate markets like Arizona and Florida were buying houses and keeping them empty because prices were skyrocketing, they knew they could sell the house in a year for a big profit and the good times were going to last forever. Of course, once the bubble popped in 2006-2008 they all got caught by the recession and those empty houses got foreclosed on. The market conditions and easy financing that made that kind of speculation possible haven't been repeated yet.
hjd-1 t1_jdfwqe9 wrote
VT is nowhere near big enough for that strategy to work for anyone. You’re thinking cities as big as our state where this happens.
Mother_Willow1095 t1_jdgwh87 wrote
Yeah true. I read something recently on manhattan landlords doings this. For that reason and so they dont have to fix the rent controlled units in buildings
06EXTN t1_jdfyehq wrote
>act 250 might be the biggest culprit
no shit sherlock. I'm all for no billboards but A250 is a dinosaur that needs extinction in place of new legislation that is more up to date with the times. It was passed in 19 fricking 70 for crying out loud.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jdh5mwb wrote
And it has kept Vermont from looking like New Jersey. Mission accomplished.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdjcjav wrote
The fact there's well under a million people in this whole state is why it doesn't look like NJ
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jdjdeb7 wrote
If there were lots of high, paying jobs, housing was inexpensive and the weather delightful there would be hordes of people here. The lack of these three factors has kept things largely the way they are with people here willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifices that living here requires.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdrlmnv wrote
Ya those things you named are why there's so few residents
Mad__Vlad t1_jdgz2l7 wrote
It’s really our waste water laws that hold back single family homes, but I’m with you on act 250, it needs hefty revisions to modernize it.
MEuRaH t1_jdh5al4 wrote
I've talked to several realtors and they all said the same thing. I would ask about AirBnB's impact on their profession and they all said Act 250 is the real killer.
shelled_peanuts t1_jdh85up wrote
if realtors are saying that, im not sure i want anything changed.
obiwanjabroni420 t1_jdhdol1 wrote
Realtors are also directly telling people looking for homes how much profit they can make using a house as a full time vacation rental.
I’m all for people who have a vacation home renting it out when they aren’t using it (basically the original idea of Airbnb), but this “buy a house to use as a private hotel” shit has got to go.
headgasketidiot t1_jdh98g5 wrote
20% of housing is second homes and vacation rentals, functionally kept outside the housing pool by rich people, but the real culprit isn't building enough? That doesn't make sense on its face unless we accept that a giant pool of vacation rentals and second homes is desirable or at least acceptable while there's a single homeless person, which I personally don't.
We could have 25% more housing inventory tomorrow if we just take the empty vacation homes and Airbnbs. Plus, if we accept that 20% of our housing will remain functionally outside the pool, and the only way is to build our way out of it, that means we're going to have to build 25% more housing than we need to build otherwise as vacation rentals and second homes continue to get snatched up.
DrPremium t1_jdhakih wrote
How do you propose we go about constitutionally (or morally..) seizing people’s private homes “tomorrow”?
headgasketidiot t1_jdhbfyc wrote
The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it. I say we take them and pay them for it, then operate them as social housing at cost to fund the program.
As for the morality, having thousands of empty homes while many are homeless is immoral. Right now, our tax dollars keep those houses empty. if a homeless person tried to stay in an otherwise empty house, armed agents of the state would show up and do any violence necessary to keep those houses empty.
amhais OP t1_jdhvepp wrote
OMG dude grow up. Being a complete tankie is a bad look.
DrPremium t1_jdhntdb wrote
A bit of a glossing over of the founding principles of our democracy I have to say... but on the moral side, should 2nd home ownership be banned? I'm not saying problems don't exist, I just think you're knee-jerking a reaction to them. Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...
headgasketidiot t1_jdhq5lz wrote
> Very slippery slope when you start saying normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. Sounds a bit like a certain failed ideology we've seen in the last century...
Christianity is a little older than the last century.
DrPremium t1_jdkpro0 wrote
oh I must have missed the part of the bible where it said 'take other people's things by force
headgasketidiot t1_jdlz657 wrote
You said "normal folks should just give up whatever 'excess' they have to those in need. "
Here's a Bible page that says exactly that:
>But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?
Another
>Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.
That one seems pretty relevant to this discussion.
Here's one that says you should lend to the poor even if the debt jubilee is coming up, during which the state will cancel all debt:
>If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. >Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin
DrPremium t1_jdn60hs wrote
Am I blind or am I missing the “by force” part? Something tells me I’m not engaging with a rational actor… I’m backing off this ‘discussion’
headgasketidiot t1_jdn8e88 wrote
You're not blind. You just moved the goalposts. That's why i quoted your original comment.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdjcz0v wrote
>The constitution has the takings clause, which says the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.
And what part of the constitution would that be?
headgasketidiot t1_jdjg81p wrote
It's literally called "the takings clause" in legal scholarship.
ejjsjejsj t1_jdrlipk wrote
That clause says just compensation must be given
headgasketidiot t1_jdrn8at wrote
Yes it does. Are you saying that's different from what I said?
>Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I am proposing we take private property, aka second homes, for public use. That clause says we can't do that unless we provide just compensation. In other words, like I said, the government can't take people's stuff without paying them for it.
ejjsjejsj t1_jds5fzn wrote
I misread your initial comment
df33702021 t1_jdhknjn wrote
It's not really "Act 250". It's that the public majority doesn't want anything built and Act 250 is the result of that. As is Current Use, which literally is a program to reduce development. Add on conservation easements and zoning and NIMBYism at the more local level. Vermont doesn't want development.
And then throw that in the pot with wastewater, building costs, labor shortages, and seasonal building schedules and here we are.
vttale t1_jdmicje wrote
I am highly suspicious of claims that Act 250 is the biggest culprit when the housing crisis is a national phenomenon informed by a number of factors of our economic system and social policies. As of some 2017 data I found, normalized to population size, Vermont isn't even in the top 10 worst off states..
I am not saying Act 250 is not a factor, because obviously it fits squarely in with "our economic system and social policies", but a generic blanket of blame is not called for either, especially with the weak "might be" qualifier. That said, I'm also not sure how much it even applies to this story, because there was only one mention of Act 250 in it, and in a more neutral context that did not look to assign blame to it.
Abbyreh t1_jdffa39 wrote
I stopped using these sites when the fees started adding 35% to the total. Thats a lot if fees!
amhais OP t1_jdffppg wrote
Yeah it’s insanity.
I’ve actually never used one at all, I like the certainty and flexibility of a hotel. You stay at a reputable chain and expect a certain standard of cleanliness, if the room sucks they can move you, you have recourse with management if there’s a problem, etc.
hippiepotluck t1_jdfie0e wrote
Right!?! I like being reasonably certain there’s not a camera in the light fixture!
meinblown t1_jdftxb8 wrote
Nobody wants to see your ass.
Elevation212 t1_jdhbkq9 wrote
Frankly I’m over the cleaning fee scam and the ridiculous list of actions needed before leaving, give me a maid service (typically for a lower price) and Iife is a lot more relaxing
[deleted] t1_jdi4qg9 wrote
[deleted]
FeistyAtmosphere4910 t1_jdg1gr7 wrote
Yes more chains in vt!
1T-Nerd t1_jdfdrq6 wrote
“Blocks of hotels masquerading as single family homes” is a beautiful way to describe neighborhoods transforming into AirBNBs
VegetableBeneficial t1_jdgp7x6 wrote
AirBnB is such a scam. The fact that you have to clean it yourself while also paying massive cleaning fees. Plus, the more troubling fact that they have really killed the housing market. I’ve talked to a lot of Vermonters who say their landlords have declined to renew their leases because Airbnb is more profitable. I’m glad this is happening. I only use hotels and I hope we can finally be rid of Airbnb and VRBO
I_producethis t1_jdht1mo wrote
The last air b n b we rented during a snow storm we literally had to shovel their fucking driveway. Edit: I should say it was an apartment attached to their house where they lived.
VegetableBeneficial t1_jdht8w7 wrote
That is so completely insane. I had an Airbnb that was dirty once and had no sheets or working AC in the summer. and when I wrote to them they said “it’s not our job to provide you sheets”
I_producethis t1_jdhtifi wrote
Good for you, I wussed out on my review - and I feel bad about not being honest and giving them the benefit of the doubt. If we didn't have AWD and good snow tires we would have gotten stuck in there driveway.
WhatTheCluck802 t1_jdozfbv wrote
💯
I too will book a hotel or bed and breakfast at virtually any cost over AirBnB - I’d love those assholes to choke on their investment.
(This does not apply to someone legitimately renting out a room in an owner occupied home - they’re fine - I’m talking about the evil investors).
Twombls t1_jdfdlqz wrote
Sadly. In places like vt that are tourist heavy its not a bust.
Legislation is our best move out of it
1T-Nerd t1_jdfe9q1 wrote
100% agree. Half the homes in my neighborhood are AirBNBs. It’s nice to have neighbors and lonely when the empty houses outweigh the permanent residents.
Twombls t1_jdfke3x wrote
Hopefully something will change soon law wise and the rest of the state will take after burlington. If not mabye vermonters could practice some good old fashioned civil disobedience and uh. Ensure the airbnbs get horrible reviews
Thetimidherd t1_jdgjp3b wrote
Personally now if I have to choose between Airbnb or a hotel, I’m going hotel every time. The fees are ridiculous with Airbnb’s, a lot of times doubling the cost for no amenities, beds that are not nearly as comfortable, and checkout instructions like “take out the trash, strip bed linens, but dirty towels in the washing machine, run the dish washer, etc.”. Where’s the value? The only time we’ll book an Airbnb is if we have to bring our dogs, then we’ll pay the extra $100 in pet fees…
imtheasianlad t1_jdhegz1 wrote
If you’re in a big group, airbnb is still definitely the better and cheaper option.
Gilashot t1_jdftbc2 wrote
I love how the echo chamber works here. “Ooh! Air BnB bad! Rent is high! Houses are hard to find!”. Bullshit. Interest rates are high.
Sort term rentals make up 3% of the housing in VT. Vacation homes are 17%. I personally know a farmer and a heavy equipment operator who own Air BnB’s that they bought and built with blue collar money and sweat.
You all should be complaining about the 1% lawyers and dentists from CT who own second homes here. Don’t punish native entrepreneurs.
And before you scream housing crisis, look at some of the short term rentals around you. They’re not all exactly suitable for long term rentals.
Macbookaroniandchez t1_jdgzwov wrote
Second homeowner chiming in. Inherited the house.
Not a lawyer, a dentist, or from Connecticut.
amhais OP t1_jdh3xn3 wrote
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”.
[deleted] t1_jdi59sa wrote
[deleted]
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.
[deleted] t1_jdj6m7v wrote
[deleted]
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.
[deleted] t1_jdqubdu wrote
[deleted]
Gilashot t1_jdn8qce wrote
Yeah, no offense. I’m just generalizing.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_jdhmvip wrote
The real problem in VT is neither, it's the work from home crowd that showed up during covid that is really ruining Vermont.
[deleted] t1_jdhrpzw wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jdi5igz wrote
[deleted]
hippiepotluck t1_jditq5m wrote
If their actual home is in Vermont I am happy that they are here!
meinblown t1_jdfubbc wrote
Why are people not allowed second homes? The homes they are building are waaaaaaay out of your price range anyways. Guaranteed.
Gilashot t1_jdfvqu1 wrote
Yeah I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be allowed. However, lots of second homes in my area are just pretty standard sized houses. 2 or 3 bedrooms. Not out of everyones price rangeZ. No one is screaming about them though, just the Air BnB’s.
meinblown t1_jdfym04 wrote
You just were...
Key-Understanding770 t1_jdfx0q1 wrote
The second home owners do contribute to the tax base, don’t have kids in your schools or put excessive demands on town services.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_jdhmqoc wrote
That's always the argument rich people make. Sure, we're making it hell to live there, but we pay taxes.
I'd rather have a worker living there contributing more than just money.
hippiepotluck t1_jditjpb wrote
They also don’t volunteer for the fire department, shop in our stores, or care about their neighbors.
Key-Understanding770 t1_jdjk0c2 wrote
Most locals don’t volunteer either. Second homeowners do shop in your stores and eat out when they are in town. Not sure that I agree that they don’t care about the neighbors either. I am a Vermonter, not rich but have done well enough to buy a second in NC.
hippiepotluck t1_jdjmpu3 wrote
I don’t think that’s true. I run a small non-profit and we have hundreds of volunteers! Also the folks I see that don’t seem to care much for neighbors are the Air B and B users, so also the owners by extension. I know plenty of second homeowners that really do care for the neighbors and community, but if you don’t live here you’re not really invested in making sure the schools are good and the children are fed.
I shouldn’t generalize too much and I know that I have here. Y’know, it’s Reddit.
GreatStateOfSadness t1_jdfpefq wrote
> As the market normalizes, some short-term-rental hosts are coming to grips with the fact that the banner days of 2021 are long gone.
We're a year past 2021 and people are acting like Airbnb's are now a thing of the past?
Not to mention the article burying the lede on why occupancy is falling: new rentals coming online are outstripping increased demand. So if demand doubles and the number of available Airbnb's triple, then it's still booked as an increase in vacancies according to this article. I have many, many issues with Airbnb, but it's continuing to make record profits with no end in sight.
Thetimidherd t1_jdgjg26 wrote
That’s an interesting point. Low interest rates probably made any kind of investment property well within reach for anybody looking to capitalize. It wouldn’t bother me if a few people overestimated the paycheck they imagined.
tamerenshorts t1_jdhcio2 wrote
There's a reason hotels have to follow laws and regulations we don't have to at home. I feel much safer going to an actual hotel / B&B / etc than the sketchy appartments-turn-hostels you can find on AirBnB. We've just had an horrific fire last week in an historical building in Old Montreal that was illegally converted to AirBnBs. Rooms with no windows, no fire alarms, no exits. 7 people died. The landlord and the tenant are running multiple AirBnB rentals in subdivided appartments that don't follow building code and fire safety regulations.
BothCourage9285 t1_jdh6g1e wrote
The STR owners shot themselves in the foot on this one. They had a good thing going and then they got greedy.
We booked a small house near Barre for a family reunion in 2019 for a reasonable price, low fees, few rules. Clean, but nothing special. Full of old junk (not antique) furniture and bedding. Tried to book the same one last summer and the nightly fee had triple, cleaning fee added, water(?) fee added, internet fee added, pet fee added and there was a todo list a mile long.
Rita22222 t1_jdfvgb1 wrote
As I was driving home today, I counted how many houses on my road were vacant. Half are occupied. Half are empty second homes. The non homestead tax rate should be much higher, not lower.
802View t1_jdg5cxr wrote
I wonder what hotel occupancy in the Burlington area is on average? I’m sure they max out on big dates like UVM/CC graduation but are most of those rooms empty most of the time? I understand hotel rooms are more efficient space-wise than apartments for short term stay, but if you’re pissed about AirBnB, couldn’t you also be pissed about the 8 hotels within a half mile of Exit 14 in South Burlington? They’re not just run by AirBnB bros, they’re million/billion dollar companies. A couple apartment buildings instead would be beneficial.
Thetimidherd t1_jdgihps wrote
I think the difference is short term rentals are typically places that would otherwise be lived in by full time residents as opposed to investment properties or vacation homes for the owners to maybe spend a few weeks a year in, if they ever visit them at all. I moved to park city where 40% of the housing stock are short term rentals. These short term rentals put an even bigger squeeze on the housing market for both renters and buyers.
Morris_Wanchuk_2 t1_jdiz7qn wrote
I now only use Airbnb for long term stays where we plan to cook. If it's a 1-3 night stay in a new city I usually look for hotels with free breakfast.
WhatTheCluck802 t1_jdoyt63 wrote
I’ve never understood what is wrong with just booking hotels, inns, bed and breakfasts. I refuse to do business with AirBnB because that model is ruining our state’s housing supply and those vultures can go fuck themselves.
United-Hyena-164 t1_jdhj1eh wrote
Praise be
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_jdm9n2t wrote
I'm intimately involved in the maintenance side of things, and noticed this a while ago. While everyone was whining and resentful, I emphasized the actual supply and demand economics, and that it would soon correct. I was right.
It's not the apocalypse. There ARE only so many STRs that can be supported. AND it doesn't come with zero hassle. Once you start breaking even LTRs become more attractive and less needy.
TheTr7nity t1_jdn7i9l wrote
AirBnB destroys communities and is one of the things effecting the housing market. I’m pretty sure most people would rejoice if AirBnB were to crash all together.
AirborneDolphin t1_jdjdqcl wrote
It’s mainly out of staters that came here during the pandemic. That’s why housing is so unreasonable high right now and you can’t purchase a tiny house for personal use without it being considered an ADU to make it legal
richstowe t1_jdrrsk0 wrote
Great ! Hooray for capitalism .
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfeq1g wrote
In a state like vermont with absolutely bloated property taxes, homeowners should be able to do whatever they wish with their properties…local governments should create more affordable housing..
Twombls t1_jdfflqp wrote
Im gonna buy up all the property around your lot and create an open pit talc mine that operates 24/7. We should be able to do whatever we want with our property. Why is it a problem
4low4low4low4low t1_jdffut8 wrote
Comparing a toxic mine with short term rentals is laughable especially in a state so dependent on tourism..
Twombls t1_jdfg2ql wrote
Short term rentals are also toxic. They take away housing from people that work in the tourism industry. And funnel money out of state
hippiepotluck t1_jdfikk0 wrote
And attract the worst sorts of people who don’t give a shit about neighbors.
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfg89m wrote
Like it or not real estate is an investment for many..
Twombls t1_jdfgg5a wrote
Cool. Might not be a smart investment to hedge all your bets on a legally dubious app that has become the target of legislators worldwide
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfgzbn wrote
Real estate has been a great investment lately. Banning Airbnbs won’t change anything.
Kplow19 t1_jdfjr41 wrote
At least traditional real estate investment still provided long term housing for people that lived here. Airbnb takes away homes that people could live in
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfjvnt wrote
I grew up in killington…there have always been short term rentals…?
Kplow19 t1_jdfpq5f wrote
And you think the amount of short term rentals hasn't risen with the popularity of Airbnb?
Pctechguy2003 t1_jdg4lg1 wrote
Investment in housing should be illegal. There are certain things that should be shielded from profit drives… basic food, water, housing…
ceiffhikare t1_jdh1bh1 wrote
..healthcare, education, incarceration. It is almost like to secure these things governments are formed amongst men by consent of the governed. When wealth can be generated by something its hard to focus on it and not how much $ is being made.
obiwanjabroni420 t1_jdhshal wrote
So your argument against “homes bought as short term rentals hurt the community” is “it makes rich people even richer”? Gotta say that’s not a very compelling argument.
Azr431 t1_jdfh004 wrote
No actually. They’re comparable.
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfh935 wrote
You should all move to states that don’t completely depend on tourism..
Twombls t1_jdfigfw wrote
We would like to not completely depend on tourismm but the airbnbs aren't helping. Like 90% of the software company I work for moved out of vt due to lack of housing. We are a remote shop now. That is like 100 people that could contribute to the economy gone. Airbnbs swallowing up our housing is not helping this.
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfj5mu wrote
The #2 and #3 largest employers in vermont are ski resorts. The state is fucked it’s never had any real economy and probably never will. I grew up in killington..there has always been a bunch of empty housing stock that local workers couldn’t afford..airbnb can be your whipping post but it’s not going to change the realities of vermont…
TrumpImpeachedAugust t1_jdh9h5o wrote
If you don't mean "whatever they wish" then you shouldn't say "whatever they wish".
hippiepotluck t1_jdfis10 wrote
And property taxes should be even higher for people who don’t live here.
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfjhyq wrote
They’re already too high for average Vermonters to own real estate…jay peak and killington are the second and third largest employers in the state..when I worked at killington I never could have afforded to pay for a house…
Twombls t1_jdfjunc wrote
That's why as a state we need to move towards industry thats not tourism. Tourism pays like shit.
4low4low4low4low t1_jdfkaso wrote
With act 250 there will never be any new industry…vermont will always be very dependent on tourism…as I said I grew up in killington…very glad I got out of vermont..love to go visit but it has very little opportunity…you should be happy you’re a programmer or whatever..just go buy a house when the market reboots..
hippiepotluck t1_jdfljzx wrote
Exactly.
amhais OP t1_jdf9777 wrote
I hate to wish a financial headache upon on anyone, in this case AirBnB owners, but I think this is great news. If true, this could help to ease some of the housing crunch that we are seeing across the state.