henry_hayes t1_iz768yx wrote
Is there a State that is handling this situation well? If so, why don’t they become the model? Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone has figured out how to solve this problem and so the “least bad” consensus becomes the norm.
lindrios OP t1_iz9ro8s wrote
I see no reason why a small state like Vermont isn't capable of being that model for others.
Unfortunately our state agencies lack any ability of oversight, and it makes it very difficult to accomplish.
henry_hayes t1_iz9srkk wrote
Yes, I hear you that it "could" be the model. As you say, the small population makes Vermont an ideal test case. But today, what state is doing the best at this? There may not be the need to reinvent the wheel (also, maybe there is), but if a precedent is being set elsewhere that's even marginally better we should look to them as a model for success to build upon.
lindrios OP t1_iz9v534 wrote
I'll start looking into this, it would have to be another northern state that also heavily relies of tourism.
I do know that Portland, ME has had huge successes with their public housing projects. That may only work in a large urban area though. It's the rural areas that are quite difficult to get resources to.
henry_hayes t1_izakbdk wrote
Yes, the rural nature adds a severe complication factor. Stand-alone housing projects, whether they be State-subsidized in a hotel/motel or built from scratch have always been, and always will be, an abject failure.
IMO, the way forward is that all proposed housing developments (i.e. condos, etc) be required to set aside a number of units for affordable housing thereby preventing the stigmatizing nature of the "housing projects".
Another idea would be for the leases of public lands by ski resorts to be codified to require employee housing for X% of the employees below a certain wage threshold.
Or, tax incentives for homeowners to build ADU's on their property.
lindrios OP t1_izan1ns wrote
These are some excellent ideas!
They are currently working on legislation that requires new developments to have a certain number of affordable housing units with "homeless preference" for tenancy. This would mean that the landlord can pull from a number of people currently GA in housing/shelters. Existing landlords are pushing back on registering existing units as they fear it will turn into "rent control".
I love the idea of employee housing. The few THP hotels that have been able to meet guidelines, I found are currently employing residents. It appears to be a win-win situation for the most part.
There are currently some funding options for Accessory Dwellings, I don't believe there is a tax break though. An accessory dwelling can increase property taxes, and running utilities to the buildings can be in the tens of thousands of dollars. There is not much incentive for people to actually take advantage of doing this.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments