Submitted by Old_Ad_1301 t3_z6k2tj in vermont
garden_ofaedan t1_iy2bup6 wrote
Reply to comment by DaddyBobMN in Why can't vermont tax Airnbn by Old_Ad_1301
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy44qna wrote
Housing and shelter are not the same thing.
garden_ofaedan t1_iy450yt wrote
I’m aware of this. Those who are unsheltered are typically unhoused, I thought that was evident.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_iy4aywl wrote
You switched from housing to shelter in your post so I wanted to level set on what was being discussed.
garden_ofaedan t1_iy4e63t wrote
I thought I had been encompassing, maybe I had not made that clear.
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”
garden_ofaedan t1_iy61yu9 wrote
How is every person having housing a “bad idea”? Housing itself is a human right.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
Personal_Change4294 t1_iy2zdhg wrote
My dad is named Bob, is that an insult now? Lol
whattothewhonow t1_iy35s4a wrote
Check the username of the person they are responding to, it was a barbed response to antagonize them.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments