Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

walterbernardjr t1_iy1xjrc wrote

Airbnb’s aren’t the root cause of housing un affordability, they’re simply a contributing factor. Root cause is lack of jobs that pay enough to compensate for the houses, and lack of houses altogether. The second is a nation wide problem started in 2010, and in the 6-8 years following as we built 2-3 million fewer homes than necessary. The first is a factor of Vermont’s geography but could be improved, but what industries are driving jobs in the state? Almost nothing.

Im not saying don’t tax Airbnb’s. Im just saying it won’t solve the problem.

83

pretentiousignoramus t1_iy34353 wrote

On paper, Vermont has 20 percent vacancy rate which is driven by 2nd homes and a lot get used as Air BnBs, sure. It seems plenty are okay with collecting taxes from out of staters who pay to not be around and keep Vt small. Up until 2010 the state population was shrinking. The state is not business friendly. Super Troopers was a film set in Vermont and filmed in New York because the tax credits were better. That's sad but happens everywhere. Still. Point made. Not business friendly. The biggest industries are healthcare and education. Bring em in, usher them out but nothing to keep them there in the meantime except seasonal or agricultural work.

The issue that's popped up in the past 5 years is investor purchasing of homes IMO. They price out individual buyers with cash offers. Banning short-term rentals not only would benefit actual BnBs which are dying in the state. It would also discourage investors and give working folks a chance.

There are jobs in Vermont that our of staters want but can't take because there is literally nowhere to live.

33

walterbernardjr t1_iy35ds2 wrote

This, exactly. Thanks for adding. All our family in Vermont is at retirement age or older, and nearly all their kids have left the state. Why? Jobs. This says it all. average annual employment growth over the past five years of -1.0%. The top three sectors by total employment are Real Estate and Rental and Leasing, Healthcare and Social Assistance, Manufacturing.

I think the state should look hard at what kind of incentives it can create to attract more businesses, especially in high growth sectors like tech, and healthcare.

9

06EXTN t1_iy3dt25 wrote

let's not forget property taxes as a factor. It was literally the one reason I couldn't buy a home in VT. My friend lives in Duxbury and pays almost 5k a year for taxes. He has a well for water, his own septic, and lives on a public dirt road. And the local police are the State Police. so what are his taxes going for exactly when he gets almost zero services from the state and town? Schools mostly.

7

No-Ganache7168 t1_iy6w11z wrote

Probably education. More than half of my taxes go to education and our local schools are a mess. I also live on a dirt road but drive on paved roads to get to work so I benefit from local taxes even though they have risen at a faster rate than my salary.

3

pretentiousignoramus t1_iy38n7x wrote

There is enough room for growth in Vermont where families like mine would want to come in and revitalize small walkable towns. I would love to buy a rundown property in a decent small town work at the school My wife is a nurse. We're still trying to make it happen.

1

random_vermonter t1_iy3jxam wrote

I’m not sure how more transplants are going to help when there’s a nasty housing crisis. I feel like people are ignoring this.

5

pretentiousignoramus t1_iy62jmx wrote

You have a worker shortage as well though. Nurses, teachers, residential construction.

Vermont is paradoxically stuck. Not enough people for available jobs. Not enough housing for the current population.

5

walterbernardjr t1_iy39080 wrote

Yeah, it’s possible for sure. It’s certainly easier if you’re closer to a large hospital (Burlington, Dartmouth)

0

random_vermonter t1_iy3jq1s wrote

I’m having a bit of difficulty wrapping my head around the idea of VT being “unfriendly” to business. How friendly do you think the state should be to businesses of all types?

Just a honest question.

4

pretentiousignoramus t1_iy3k5iu wrote

Typically that comes down to tax incentives. "Pro-business" certainly can go too far or you have companies taking advantage of a system. The biggest way I see cities getting ripped off are with ProSport stadiums. Football teams can get cities to spend a ton of money to pay for these stadiums and the cities typically look at the benefits of this sales tax that they will reap as well as the other benefits to local businesses who will also benefit from having a large population of people in their area. As far as Vermont's concerned if I have a private business I'm going to pay significantly more in taxes to have my business there rather than in New Hampshire or New York which means that I take my business the income that that business makes and the jobs that it would create as well as the tax revenue that you would get from the income tax from those jobs. I could see Vermont taking a more progressive attitude towards small business owners and giving them better tax breaks especially if they're paying x amount over a livable wage or whatever kind of targets that the state would want to set.

5

random_vermonter t1_iy3kdjv wrote

Fair enough. There has to be balance because as you said, big businesses love to run amok when there is lax regulation.

2

pretentiousignoramus t1_iy3py2i wrote

Yeah I'm not all about letting companies get away with murder; loosening regulatory restrictions regarding clean water, waste deposits etc. But if you're bringing in a business that might means employing more people with $50K + jobs and you can ease tax burdens to court some of those types of companies you'll have better paying jobs.

2

Old_Ad_1301 OP t1_iy2264m wrote

Yes, I live in southern vt. Was building the public station building in wilminton, had a laborer from mass, (he was union in mass laid off for a few months) I was his boss building the police/firestation (public safety building) as a laborer in the hills of Massachusetts he made 30 and hour, as his boss in Wilmington vt I made 20. I quit carpentry then in this state

13

SlytherinTargaryen t1_iy5fghu wrote

It would sure solve a hell of a lot. Rich people milking money out of properties they don't live in will be upset, but who gives a shit about that?

−1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy25p6d wrote

The problem is not lack of houses. There are more empty homes than there are homeless individuals in this country. The problem is the barriers in place to obtaining housing.

−4

whys0brave t1_iy7t6co wrote

I'm not understanding why this is getting down voted

2

garden_ofaedan t1_iy87356 wrote

I’m not either. Maybe it’s the people who own second, vacant dwellings?

1

DaddyBobMN t1_iy2aemc wrote

This is factually incorrect and I truly hope you don't believe it.

−13

Twombls t1_iy2d8u0 wrote

There are actually many more empty houses in vt than homless people. We have the second highest rate of unoccupied homes

19

garden_ofaedan t1_iy2bup6 wrote

Oh boy. It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of objective reality, but I’m curious so I’ll humor you— where’s your evidence or any evidence at all to the contrary, DadBob CondescendingPants? And where is it you recommend I find an answer that lines up with your statement?

2

whys0brave t1_iy7tt22 wrote

What about all of the lovely "seasonal homes" along the lake in Malletts Bay in Colchester? Most of them are vacant for 10 months of the year. What if you want to buy one and live in it all year round? You literally have to pay MORE money for the opportunity to occupy the same exact space when you buy the house because the houses are on "leased land" where the land owner charges a higher rate every year to rent the land that your owned house sits upon meanwhile for the majority of homes they're vacation homes that sit empty. Why have to pay more just to occupy a space that couldn't otherwise be occupied if you weren't there? If anything those who pay less benefit from those who stay year round because they keep an eye on the property and prevent squatters from moving in. Seriously there are a ton of emokty empty houses and unattainable houses because many are in disrepair and still expensive. Furthermore there is plenty of land where people shouldn't have to be forced to live on top of each other for an attainable cost but it isn't profitable for investors to develop that way which is why the look and feel of the towns are being destroyed anyway with ugly and unaffordable condo apartments where you can't even buy an RV if you wanted to.

2

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy31ugm wrote

That which can be asserted without evidence can be disregarded without evidence. Where is your evidence backing up the statement?

As it stands I’ve read two factually conflicting statements and so far neither has done any work to show they are correct.

As they said in high school math class.... show your work.

*I found the data fairly easily after a quick search. For reference, I think you are both only sharing the part of the data that suites your needs.

1

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3o7x9 wrote

https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/realestate/vacancy-rate-by-state.html

Here are two sources. Apologies for not including them sooner. To clarify: I am by no means claiming solving homelessness or mitigating the rising rates of homeless people is a simple fix. There are many moving parts. That does not take away from the number of vacant dwellings vs. number of homeless people being a huge piece of the problem.

2

thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy3ruvc wrote

I found the data. VT has like a 20% vacancy rate. That is a lot but it looks like a fair amount of that housing is not applicable to the homeless issue. Like the 1000 units of condos in stowe can't simply be repurposed.

*Those were actually the two citations I found as well.

2

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3tcev wrote

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

DaddyBobMN t1_iy3haw7 wrote

Homelessness is notoriously difficult to quantify, even our own census bureau admits that. Depending on who is doing to estimating the real numbers are two to five times higher than what is counted.

And why the need for name calling, can't you have discourse like an adult? How many accounts have you been through at this point?

0

garden_ofaedan t1_iy3mkhu wrote

Okay, you’re right, the name was unnecessary and I apologize for that. “How many accounts have I been through” following the question of if I can have discourse like an adult would have me as you the same of whether you can also have discourse like an adult.

Do I think the numbers we’re given of homeless people reflect the true number of homeless individuals? Nope. But I also am not just pulling the statement of “more empty homes than houseless folks” out of my behind? Also nope. The research done, while impossible to perfectly quantify given how much situations fluctuate person to person, shows what it shows. I’m curious though why you seem to so firmly believe there aren’t actually enough homes to end homelessness since still no evidence has been shared to back up your point. Could you please cite your sources? Not asking as a “gotcha”— if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly rectify my stance. Believe it or not I am actually open to learning.

3

RetiscentSun t1_iy4tjfv wrote

> This is factually incorrect and I truly hope you don't believe it.

I would love to see what facts you are relying on to make this statement.

1

Personal_Change4294 t1_iy2zdhg wrote

My dad is named Bob, is that an insult now? Lol

−1

whattothewhonow t1_iy35s4a wrote

Check the username of the person they are responding to, it was a barbed response to antagonize them.

2

Personal_Change4294 t1_iy39xs7 wrote

oh good, he would hate to know that being called DadBob is an insult on the internet for some reason.

2