I wouldn't necessarily state it's NIMBY, as I agreed they some housing needs to be built to accommodate the increasing workforce of the area, I just believe that there is a better spot for the majority of the housing.

Imo NIMBY would be to refuse the optimal location for the housing just to not have it in your area. I don't agree that it's optimal in a crowded tourist town that doesn't have proper traffic flow, a large grocery store, or other needed items.

Have a great Friday! Good talk.

I think there is give and take to both of our points. I'm not set in stone on my opinions. It's just that Stowe is a lightning rod for these articles due to the ski resort. To me, that means that actual solutions are being overlooked, and it just charges the conversation.

Please install another cellphone tower lol. It's incredible that a place with that much traffic has the worst cell reception I've seen in a decade.

>And we’ve all been stuck on the mountain road for at least two hours. It’s nuts.

I've turned around 3 times in 2 years...

At least this year felt better with the new parking limitations. However, I don't like that it's just another added cost for skiers. I'm a proponent for 2-3 bus specific parking lots near the restaurants and town. Ones that do not make 10 stops along the way. That way it promotes the businesses of the town that are away from the resort, and it provides a clear spot for free efficient public transport.

>its cool if you want to defend this, I’m just not going to.

Yeah. I get that. You are doing the exact opposite. You are calling them malicious, a gate community, and soloing them out.

>Well if you can’t afford to buy stock in the first place it’s a moot point in the larger discussion of affordability.

Who says that every stock needs to be affordable? I can't afford Berkshire Hathaway, should I call that company malicious for not dividing their stock to my level of affordability?

You are attacking one town, that frankly doesn't have the infrastructure to support a massive increase in size. In another comment I pointed out that Waterbury center is a much better candidate for expansion with the infrastructure already in place. However, everyone only wants to focus on the ski town with the resort.

I agree that there needs to be housing for the workers, but I don't agree it necessarily all needs to fall inside that town. I believe, with the expanding resort and local businesses, that housing needs to be built to support the workers.

The only focus is on the town itself, which is an option, but there is plenty of space between Morrisville and Stowe. My favorite spot would be to expand Waterbury center. That area has the infrastructure to support expansion. It has the larger grocery store, hardware store, gas stations, land, proximity to interstates, and more.

People want Stowe to do everything, it's just not the optimal with current infrastructure.

>What you are describing is gentrification.

You are describing gentrification, and you are calling it malicious. I'm just stating the town was built up for many decades as a vacation destination, many of which were initially purpose built as second homes/vacation rentals, not displacing the locals. A fair few of locals typically profited on their homes through the years.

>Just because the town was built as a resort area doesn’t mean it’s immune to criticism and good housing regulation.

No, it just makes it the focus of the criticism. Waterbury Center would be a great place to expand housing, but you don't see multiple articles on that. Everyone just focuses on the town with the resort.

I agree that as of late, STRs have become a higher percentage than typical, but I disagree that it's malicious in an area that was built with second homes and "vacation rentals." The houses were propose built and expanded for that market for 50+ years; this is not a new phenomenon for a ski town.

The citizens of the small area are voting in their own interests, that doesn't sound malicious to me.

Does Stowe need to expand and become affordable to all?

I'm not sure Stowe will ever be affordable. I wouldn't want much of the space filled in to increase the city density.

I completely understand. I did not think it was possible, but it was brought up as a topic in that last meeting.

If the GPS systems are trucks only and not the standard ones the public uses, then they could hold liability for refusing to change the road designation.

Frankly, I liked the idea that proposed a fine to the GPS companies that the truck is utilizing.

One of the main reasons the trucks continue past the signage is that they trust the GPS. Forcing the hand of the GPS companies for trucks is a great way to tackle that issue without spending money.

Memory reset and thought loops are what led me to stop for now. Mine were never horrific, just the same 30 seconds on repeat. It was more annoying than anything.

Trying to figure out why my vision is weird

Slowing down visuals

Asking myself or my wife a question I was confused on

Realizing I am tripping

Finally coming back mentally to enjoy the trip

-memory reset-

Trying to figure out why my vision is weird ...

I'm not against the idea of paying politicians a much higher wage than what is being proposed.

Make the position worthwhile, so it attracts more than people who can do it on the side.

Yeah... It's always hard to trust unverified sources on Reddit. I'll believe it when it's verified.

The parking permit/payment worked this year for Stowe to keep the traffic down. First and foremost, Stowe needs public transit such as a tram to allow for easier travel between downtown and the mountain. There are no Ubers out here, which puts a limit on local business.

Additionally, I hope they build both condominiums and apartments for workers.

That's all. Keep it feeling open.

Remnants of an era of fear and over control of personal responsibility (e.g. drugs and sex education). Abstinence rarely works for the masses. There isn't really much of a push to have it legalized from what I've seen.

The fear that if we legalize gambling, then anyone could fall into the trap. "I've seen what Vegas has done to people." Yes, if you only have one area that is widely open for gaming, you will attract gamblers that become addicted. In my opinion, that is not enough of a reason to entirely restrict the general public.

Legalization allows for regulations, regulations designed to protect the well being of the public. Currently, if you want to gamble on sports, you have to go through some sort of illegal channel, which is a riskier endeavor with less safety nets.

It will pass eventually, there will be resistance.

My jacket from 2 years ago is one of the best constructed piece of clothing I've bought in a long time. They are still worth it in my opinion.

I highly recommend watching PBS space time on YouTube. Great host with amazing graphics to give you a way to follow along.

I wish I watched it while getting my degree.

It just sounds like you don't want to engage in the initial comment I made.

You hear about the bad landlords, you aren't hearing about the good ones. It's not that there aren't good landlords.

I'm in the younger group...

Yes, it is most definitely younger.

• 18-29 36%
• 30-49 22%
• 50-64 10%
• 65+ 3%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/261766/share-of-us-internet-users-who-use-reddit-by-age-group/

Maybe... This can be thought of for landlords as well.

There are definitely bad landlords, but the are most definitely good landlords as well. I would argue that it appears to be moving towards having more bad as the years go on, but I would also argue that on the internet you will mainly see negative comments for all subjects, including landlords. Lastly, I would argue that tenant protections and oversight over the landlords has been increasing, so that is definitely a good thing.

Reddit and social media are primarily of the younger generation, and it's definitely an echo chamber to an extent. This can bring good change, but it can also bring uneducated overreactions.

>I think the landlord here is obnoxious

Agreed, but he is within his legal rights.

>I understand that you don’t see it.

I do see it. I just disagree that the way you stated would be worth trying. There are proper channels to handle this as a tenant that are legal and would get minimal pushback from the landlord. Such as:

• placing an opposing sign in your window.
• informing the public of the law, such as on Reddit
• speaking with those who can vote in your areas

Agreed. If they are organized, the majority has the ability to make a change.

I dislike bad landlords; I agree with the vast majority of tenant protections. I hope the majority is organized and knowledgeable enough to inact proper change.

Does any advice on Reddit qualify as legal advice? Can someone hold me to my comment and sue? Actually asking, because I don't know; I'm leaning towards no.

What if a person states that it is legal advice, would that even hold up from a Reddit comment?

Car rentals are not the same legal standing as home rentals.

>I am not going to tell someone it is frivolous to try or at least make the demand.

They are more than welcome to ignore all Reddit advice, look up the information themselves, ask a lawyer, speak to a tenant representative, or do what ever they please. It has been asked, it has been settled, but they can still try.