I mean... If this quote from the article is true, I feel like asking for a rate hike once every 10 years is actually pretty reasonable:

> Morrisville’s utility, like Stowe, serves more than 4,000 customers and hasn’t raised its rates in over 10 years.

Further, is it even possible for "100% Pure Maple Syrup" to taste like coconut? Or can they still claim 100% pure if they add a coconut flavoring?

I fuckin' moved to VT because I wanted to live somewhere where I was near skiing and didn't see grass between December and April, and I can't afford any ski towns out west.

Feels like we haven't had a good winter since 2019, and I hate it.

This isn't a thaw. This is just warm weather. If anything, the two storms we've actually gotten have been "freezes," more than the rest of the winter have been "thaws."

My wife and I have done the same with a flight to Vancouver. If you're flying to Canada, definitely makes sense to go from Montreal. For US flights, we usually opt for Boston.

That is very not true - Okemo, Killington, Stratton, Smuggs, and Mount Snow all offer snow tubing, and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

>Seems pretty much every town and legislative body bends over backwards to court the tourist dollar

I would draw a distinction between catering to tourists, and catering to second homeowners or rental property owners. We can invite guests and provide them hospitality, while still making sure they stay in hotels (not AirBNBs) and go home at the end of their vacation.

Agreed. I was addressing the premise in the post i initially responded to, which was "tax short-term rentals and pass the proceeds onto homeowners to build ADUs," which I'm opposed to for the reasons previously stated. Further, the most upvoted reply on this post as a whole is pointing out a government program that provides up to $50,000 to existing homeowners to build an ADU. In the context of those kinds of programs, where the government is just writing somebody a check, I'd rather see them write a check to a renter to help them become a homeowner, than to a homeowner to help them become a landlord.

But like I said in my previous post, I'd rather the government just take the money and build more housing, with the caveat that it needs to be somehow targeted at first-time homeowners.

I want to turn renters into homeowners. This strategy turns homeowners into landlords and puts more money in their pockets every month. Renters would hopefully see some benefit in terms of cheaper rent, but that only indirectly at best helps with the goal of turning them into homeowners.

Taking STR tax revenue and paying homeowners to build apartments transfers money from property investors to existing homeowners to build the unit, and then from renters to existing homeowners as the homeowner collects rent on the unit that potentially cost nothing out-of-pocket to build. Homeowners win 2x, investors lose (this is good), and renters also more or less lose (this is bad). So yes, I'd rather see the wealth transfer from property investors to renters, who then purchase a home. The property investors still lose (good), home sellers win (could be argued either way), and the (now former) renter has a home of their own to live in (good).

Or maybe the state should just take the tax revenue and directly build affordable homes that are deed-restricted to full-time residents with a preference to first-time home buyers. That's probably simpler, helps solves the supply problem, and helps first-time buyers. But if we're passing proceeds onto somebody in the form of a subsidy, then like I said, I'm firmly in favor of a plan that turns renters into homeowners, rather than homeowners into landlords.

If you're providing down-payment assistance to purchase a house IN VERMONT, they couldn't very well just abscond with the cash. True, the would have to be some kind of stipulations that they live full-time in the property for X number of years, or the money has to be paid back.

But that's fine; it's not JUST about housing stock (though to be fair, that is a factor). The point is, home ownership is the largest source of wealth for most Americans. I would rather see financial assistance directed to help renters get into a home and start building that wealth, rather than write a big check to existing homeowners who already HAVE that equity... so they can make even more money by collecting rent from tenants who are still struggling to achieve home ownership.

How about passing the proceeds on to renters who'd like to buy a house and actually live in it year-round?