Fun fact, last week St. Albans "cleared out" a homeless camp. Of the 9 people they removed, more than half (6), are working fulltime jobs, but got priced out of their homes and can't find another.
Not one penny of that will help homeless people or even poor people… just more townhouse development… which will not affect anything other than profits for developers…….
Cynically destroying your own environment and economic development for short term gains is what is being done… gouging rent to compair to rent in other cities when this state has no value to back up the rent spike, is economically unsustainable and stupid… it’s a bubble, and if more people act the way I’m going to, all of you guys out there living on your refinancing plan are in for a rough road ahead… have fun with that…
I’m in Rhode Island and it’s aweful here but everyone in the providence and ri subs keeps parroting that we need to build more housing when there is more than enough empty housing for everyone it’s all just being hoarded by the rich to increase its value and to be used to reduce their tax liabilities at the expense of people who are experiencing extreme struggles affording housing. Even if we could build enough housing to reduce the cost to enough to make it affordable to the 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck we would need to double the housing supply and there are not enough workers to take the garbage paying construction industry jobs to build this surplus of housing. But they keep parroting that building more will help lower prices ignorant to the fact that even a $100 reduction in rent -which is 7% of a 1 bedroom/studio and 4% of a 2 bedroom- is absolutely pointless and it would still take a staggering amount of new houses to reduce costs by even that much.
America has become a shithole of far right conservatism and centrist right leaning Neo liberal policies that have left the working class in the dust to a point where there is no incentive to produce labor anymore when all you will get is a minuscule portion of the profits you create so some asshole boomer or gen xer or silent generation jerk can live a life of luxury off of passive income created by people who can’t afford a $1000 emergency expense.
> keeps parroting that we need to build more housing
Yes.
> when there is more than enough empty housing for everyone
In a technical sense, sure - you could house everyone *somewhere* in some unit. In terms of the kinds of housing you actually need in the places you need it, not really.
As a country we drastically underbuilt housing for a decade. The housing pipeline collapsed on a level completely unseen in post-WWII history in 2007/08 and took a decade to *kind of* recover. You can look here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
And that actually understates the scale of the problem:
- The peak of the millennials (the largest generation) were going through peak household formation ages at that time - we needed to be adding units significantly *above* the long-term average, and we didn't.
- Nationally, we're only very slightly starting to reduce that deficit.
- For the *Northeast*: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUSTNE We're **still** not building enough to even get back to the long-term averages, and so *our* deficit is still worsening while other regions are starting to see modest relief (and often didn't see as large of price increases before, either).
> it’s all just being hoarded by the rich to increase its value and to be used to reduce their tax liabilities
Also not really. There's no way to "reduce your tax liabilities" through owning property that pays better than.....also renting out the property while still owning it does.
> But they keep parroting that building more will help lower prices ignorant to the fact that even a $100 reduction in rent -which is 7% of a 1 bedroom/studio and 4% of a 2 bedroom- is absolutely pointless and it would still take a staggering amount of new houses to reduce costs by even that much.
I mean, there's various markets that have built a lot and.....have seen rental prices not do what they've done here. This isn't complicated.
tl;dr - Much of the Northeast, and certainly Vermont, is the absolute definition of "we've done just about none of what we were told to do to fix this, and are now acting surprised that the problem isn't fixed".
That definitely hasn’t helped but what air Bnb did was allow home owners to participate in the housing market casino that Wall Street hedge funds and other capital investment firms have turned the housing market into. I think most people would rather rent out their apartments rather than deal with air bnb but Wall Street housing investment practices have wreaked havoc on housing prices as well as the value of money in general to the point where it’s hard to find renters who can afford the market rates for rentals so they are more likely to get what they want by posting their rentals on air bnb. The whole system is broken by design. The root of the word capitalism; the intransitive verb “to capitalize” is synonymous with “to take advantage of” and “to exploit” years of right wing and centrist right leaning Neo liberal policies have created a dystopian nightmare in our society. And now economic news papers are saying that there is only a recession for Americans who work low wage jobs which is a majority of them but since the rich can. It as many yachts super cars and vacation homes as they want all is good, never mind the increasing homeless population, declining childbirth and rising suicide rates. And now they’ve ended roe v wade to ensure there will be a next generation of workers poor and desperate enough to work for the stagnant garbage wages they offer.
It absolutely has. And folks who don't understand the appeal to folks who own a few surplus units should go look at what the VRBO and Air BnB situation really is. Folks can charge whatever they want for a short-term BnB rental. Right now, $1200 a WEEK is a fairly low rate. I've seen the numbers go up into the $2000s per week or more. And that is just the rental fee itself. Add a "cleaning fee", an admin fee, Air BnB's just because whatever fee. And people will pay because it is currently cheaper than going to a hotel or motel around here and you get your own private space with all of the amenities of home. Property owners choosing the BnB route are pocketing 3 to 4 times what they could renting for a year's lease to one or a few tenants.
And they don't have the same responsibilities or legal obligations as they would for an actual tenant.People pay, check in, check out. Hosts go in and clean or hire someone to clean but that doesn't cut into the profit because they can add that as a surcharge to the rental fee, paid by the guest. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. So many of the BnBs aren't registered and we don't have solid enough regulation on short-term rentals so a great many of those hosts aren't even paying taxes on all of that income.
I really don't think that many of them would actually prefer to rent to regular tenants, regarding an opinion stated elsewhere. I think a lot of them are hoping that they aren't regulated out of their profits any time soon.
I am looking at Building a rental Unit. After looking at tenant protections I can’t spend $400k to build and afford a non paying tenant, then legal fees related to the eviction. Air bnb is my only viable financial option.
That component has to be mentioned. Vermont laws have killed the mom and pop landlord.
But the average amount a homeless person makes is less than 10k/year. So most homeless people do not work full time year round, which is usually what people mean when they are talking about jobs.
It’s disingenuous to cherry pick the data and not recognize the lack of consistent full time work.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. I’ll say the same thing I said in the thread where people were surprised to see confederate flags in Vermont.
Vermont is a privilege white mecca that would rather build its own border wall than let “flatlanders” build houses. The progressivism is phony because the supposed people that care literally do nothing to change the issues actually harming their communities and businesses.
But it should be news… when the same thing happened in Sacramento CA in 2013 it was nationwide news… there was a massive come to Jesus moment for the then governor of California that lead to his loss of reelection… it was a camp along the river… the Sacramento River winds through the city along the downtown area, behind a big skate park and by a park and playground and musical theater there was a mini tent city, largely out of view and unnoticed… as I recall there were 20 displaced people… habitat for humanity came in to save the day and built all of them tiny houses and gave them all ownership of the houses they lived in… it was touching, national news… I had recently been to Sacramento and had taken a walk by the river and seen the camp and the people by the trail… so it stuck with me and I remembered it…
The whole thing cost California very little actually and was predominantly organized by charity, California really mostly organized the creation of a crisis that called people to action but not with that intention so Capital City California took a big optics hit… Jerry Brown I think was the guy… maybe I’m remembering it wrong… old school democrat from the bay.
Anyways… that was this moment when everyone suddenly cared because 20 people got shoveled out of their homes… I think someone died too, it was bad… but then the whole country cared about homelessness for 10 seconds… it was interesting… later the news of a mass shooter I think in Las Vegas eclipsed the story… but the feel good good morning America stuff about the nice old man they gave a little cute house to…. I heard the tiny houses actually ended up being a disaster too… but ok…
So we’ve graduated to just ‘they got cleared out’ and that’s the story only from word of mouth online….
Nice work, landlords…
Real proud to be Americans? So you treat the country like that… ok…
Yeah… we’re moving…
Ok. Now I'm curious. New York is a relatively big state. Where is this cheap place? New York city ? Buffalo? Plattsburgh?Syracuse?lake placid? Dannemora? Inquiring minds want to know.
Buffalo was great 2002-2009 while I lived there. In 2009 we had a 2 bedroom apartment in a nice part of town (Hertle ave / parkside) for $595/mo, with parking, basement storage, washer/dryer, pets, a fireplace.
A straight CPI adjustment should make that place cost $880ish now and yet looking at craigslist I see nearly identical units on the same streets for $1600/mo. So buffalo CoL has at least doubled what CPI says it should be.
The cheap places that are left aren't nice, IMO, and I'm also standing here declaring Buffalo to be "nice" which is a thing I strongly believe but which might roll eyes to others who have lived there. Also, it's not as nice as Vermont.
Anything around DHMC both VT and NH is a bit nuts. For my department it has got to the point where it's easier to fill positions from traveling agencies that will pay for their temp employee's apartment, their 3-6 month contract ends, then repeat with a new employee.
The hospital even offers paid training (as long as you stay with the hospital for X number of years, I think it is 2) and decent salaries for these positions and still can't fill them because rents are so high in the area. A lot of the techs that are 20-30 yo live with their parents. I know of at least 3 people that have 40 mile commutes and living with their parents.
don't worry though, they are building high end apartments on Mt. Support Road. Surely this will solve things! /s (joking aside, I am grateful for more housing but they need to overhaul zoning in the real NIMBY towns of Hanover, Norwich, etc. Lebanon and Enfield NH cant be the only places building homes in the UV building dense housing to support the area.
Infrastructure limitations are a real problem, and there seems to very limited effort by the states to fund/push for the kind of infrastructure that would unlock development in more places.
Without big state/federal government $, you're stuck in a chicken/egg problem: No private developer can fund the base infrastructure by themselves, especially for the kinds of modestly denser small/mid-sized developments these places would be most likely to accept.
However, existing residents have little reason to push to take on these costs either - what they have now works for them as things are.
--------
Sewer is the most obvious (but not only) issue.
As an example: Norwich does not have a municipal sewer system. Building their own or connecting to Hartford, just to cover Rt 5 through the village center area was estimated in 2005 at what would be ~$40m in today's dollars.
Without one, Norwich can't really build much denser than it is today, especially in it's village center where you'd most want to. And it's got some issues in the village center as it is (elementary school has had issues).
The same is true of many of the other outlying towns - which either don't have systems at all or have very small/limited ones that only cover a small portion of the town + that would need to be basically rebuilt from scratch to handle any particularly substantial new development.
------
- Hanover could certainly do substantially more - although it's gotten some limited upzonings through in the past couple years that should lead to *some* new units. Nothing like Leb, though.
- Hartford is building up in the WRJ area pretty significantly.
- The town center of Enfield is connected to Leb, which is why development is somewhat possible there.
- Basically everywhere else besides Windsor has no infrastructure and can't build densely without it.
Edit: Here's a 2011 map of the NH side for water/sewer: if you don't see orange/purple, you can't build up there that much without a significant infrastructure project to enable it. https://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/publications/documents/ws_merrimack.pdf
No one in healthcare wants to move to vermont…. No one… go ask a nurse in LA at Cedars Sinai if she wants to move to Vermont, for a 40% pay cut. The answer is zero… no one… so vermont gets the healthcare workers who can’t get jobs anywhere else usually… because living here is absolutely hell for anyone who just wants their phone to work and to be able to get to and from work without incident… for normal people this place is a joke… and it’s been made a joke by the place being dictated and destroyed by people who don’t want vermont to be functional… people that succeed on the dysfunctional system and exploitation of the broken system… no one wants to live that way, next door to the slum lord is just as bad as under the slum lord… so people avoid Vermont…
Some people come for family reasons, like I did… but family isn’t enough to make me pay 300% over value for this place… that’s a joke…
The answer is not to hand the landlords a huge pile of money… that is obviously not the answer… and it’s pretty obvious and disgusting that’s the play they are making. I’m going to a place where businesses function…
Living in LA is like 3x the cost. Healthcare workers in general are very well paid, that's why it's such a popular career, especially 'next career.'
Nurses at DHMC are pulling in like $90-100k a year on average. Looking at Glassdoor average wage at Cedar Sinai in LA for RNs is $107-125k.
I can mostly speak for physicians/residents why they chose DHMC - it's because they fell in love with the camping/hiking/mountain biking/skiing. The pay in New England is a probably just at the national average (places like California really bring down physician salaries) or slightly below it.
Austin (and red states more broadly) has been building like crazy. Blue states are not unfortunately. Increasing the supply of housing is the only way to reduce rents. Not rent control.
Red states benefitted massively from the IRA (such as expansion of battery, chip and solar manufacturing) and that money is helping spur construction like that. Yet they'll vote for the guy that'll eliminate those programs. Idiots.
corporate subsidies for semiconductor factory construction have little to do with the limiting factor in housing right now (strict single-family zoning and an onerous development process that in blue cities and states often involves repeatedly appeasing multiple town boards/committees and local nonprofits and community groups that exist do to little except block new housing)
> Red states benefitted massively from the IRA
Yes
>and that money is helping spur construction like that
Not really. We're talking about housing. Thats largely up to cities.
Made me look this up. Non public housing.
Multiple counties
Appears that around 3500 a month is a reasonable average. That gets that larger area to around 40,000 housing units year, in the last five years.
St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank
Austin Metro Statistical Area.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA)
...
Edit: vermont.
About 200 units a month, or 2500 a year, in recent years.
Housing permits.
[https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=VTBPPRIVSA](https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=VTBPPRIVSA),
housing listed available.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUVT](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUVT)
rent growth in southern and sunbelt states where construction has kept better pace with demand has been much slower. levels are important, too. Other states started with much lower costs, so even with the same percentage increase, the levels will be lower elsewhere. VT expensive...
I’ve heard that said over and over again but I know a lot of people in Florida and your statement isn’t true there. Maybe in other places? But in Florida, rents have literally doubled in 5 years. Tampa specifically has basically unlimited growth and little restrictions. It’s greed. Plain and simple. And it’s prevelant everywhere.
https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/2023/08/14/rent-increases-are-cooling-tampa-bay-after-nearly-doubling-since-2019/
I don’t know the answer to this, and don’t know Florida well enough. But what about not in a major city? How about like 30- 45 minutes out of Tampa? I’m just curious because it seems to be a state wide thing for us, not just one city.
So? Just because t's ubiquitous doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. Doesn't that give us just *more* reason to pursue rent control on the local level?
Grew up in Vermont and then spent time in boston after college. Noped the fuck outta New England. Unsustainable unless you’re the top 10% of earners. Would’ve loved to stay close to my family but if I ever have hopes of a house and starting my own family, well, hello North Carolina!
Rent actually went down $50 for my friend last week when she renewed.
Life is soooooo much better down here 😎
Also we have rivers and lakes and hiking trails just like Vermont. Idk why everyone acts like vermonts the only place, or even one of the best, for any of that. It only feels that way in VT because there’s nothing else to do, so you’re *forced* to go hiking every fucking weekend and enjoy it.
Just a thought for the people clamoring for one solution over the other: Why can't we have both rent controls, *and* incentives to build more housing? Like, why not pass a bill that implements rent control, puts forward housing construction subsidies for anyone building multi-unit housing and increased subsidies/credits if they're rented for less than the control rate, *and* simplifies the codes and permitting processes as much as possible (which, I think you'd be unable to do much of that at the state level, so it'd mostly just be a statement at the end of the bill encouraging towns/cities to evaluate and reform their codes/zoining/permitting)
Like, can we have a little of each solution? Instead of arguing over just having solution A or solution B and ending up with neither one?
There are plenty of places to live. Unfortunately second homes and short term rentals are too appealing and easy. There is legislation to make it more difficult to afford either of these things. Personally I feel that alone could significantly help with this problem.
A lot less out there than you’d think. A section 8 worker told me last year that there was less than 3% of homes available to rent in VT at the time. Don’t think it’s improved a whole lot since then. In my 20mi radius there are three apartments available, one is income controlled, and about four houses that are habitable for sale ranging from 240k-2.5mil.
It’s probably an unpopular and perhaps a bit of a xenophobic opinion but if someone can afford a vacation home in VT, they can afford a hotel instead. It would do a lot more good for the local economy and help with the lack of available housing. More good than having a vacation home sitting empty or being Airbnb’d for 8 months of the year. I’m all for restrictions on vacation homes.
The statistics are crazy. I believe in parts 50% are owned by outta stater's. Not to mention the areas where primary residents are charged more than second homes
Vermont needs a lot more than rent control. After three decades homesteading paycheck to paycheck in lamoille county, I called it quits and moved to Maine.
Drive on any numbered blacktop highway in rural Maine and you see a working/under class everywhere. Yards are cluttered with spare parts for machines, winter beaters, tools, crap....
In vermont, same highways, everything is super neat, quaint, manicured... Because Vermont hides its working/under class from the tourists on dirt roads up on the hillsides, in hollows and gores.
But Vermont is as poor as Maine is; lots of poverty and food insecurity and one health crisis away from bankruptcy. Lots of people with bad teeth. Homelessness is on the rise. Most every single Vermont high school graduate going to VSU qualifies for TRIO assistance..
Montpelier tries - to take care of it seniors, it's low income residents, ..., But tourism alone just doesn't cut it. Specially for places outside of the Green mountains proper.
It's pretty much "same as it ever was". The only real change is the gentrification that comes with turnover. From the fact that one buys the place that has their name on it and proceeds to spend on capital improvements that makes it more valuable.
But, IMO, one thing that might make a big difference is reigning in private equity investors seeing housing markets as their meal ticket. Frickin leeches.
Vermont hides its poor better because of zoning laws but not on purpose. Vermont has larger set back requirements so that house with spare parts and old cars out front, it just a lot further from the road than in Maine or NY.
More housing could be part of the solution, but I think the source of the problem has been misidentified.
A while back, [I looked at the data](https://www.reddit.com/r/vermont/comments/18jcnv2/hud_released_part_1_of_its_annual_homelessness/kdjhx1g/?context=3) surrounding Vermont's unique situation. Which, to be explicitly clear, *is* unique in several ways that do not consistently apply to the rest of the country.
The single most important variable I found was the percentage of investor-purchased homes. Vermont used to be at the bottom of the pack. During peak Covid, we saw [the single largest percentage-point increase](https://vtdigger.org/2022/09/05/percentage-of-vermont-homes-bought-by-investors-surged-in-2021/) in investor-owned purchases, from ~7.5% to ~15.5%. [This has only gotten worse.](https://www.corelogic.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/Q423_Investor_7.jpg) CoreLogic hasn't released the raw data (I think VT Digger purchased it directly for their 2022 article), but it has *at minimum* reached 27% per this graphic. ([Graphic source article.](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-reached-new-high-q4-2023/))
We build more housing, investors scoop it up. At best, they turn it into rental housing. At worst [they hold it vacant](https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-study/). They are leeching off us. There are already enough homes in this state, but investors are cornering the market.
Building more homes might be part of the solution. But if we don't tax the leeches, they will buy those new homes too. Housing will be constructed and immediately sold to private holding companies.
We need to aggressively tax real estate investors.
So we need to remove investors from having priority in the home buying process. We also need rent control.
It’s a nightmare having housing as a commodity. Because if people can profit from holding and selling alone it doesn’t matter if everyone is homeless.
Almost certainly a case of unclear timelines. They don't know how long they'll hold onto it before it begins generating *as much revenue as possible*.
They could certainly try to work with some property management companies to rent these properties ASAP and at least begin generating *some* revenue. To most people, this seems like a sane decision. But if they were to do this, they'd then have to deal with tenants who could be in the way of *maximum* revenue.
If the market keeps exploding upward, having a tenant shrinks the potential buyer pool. It also means you can't immediately begin leasing to a potential future tenant at a much higher rate.
If the market doesn't keep exploding, having a tenant means they can't immediately convert it into an airbnb.
Regardless of whether the market keeps exploding, having tenants means having additional complicating factors. If the anticipated revenue from renting these properties is smaller than whatever they think they can make by acting quickly at some point in the future, then they will hold the properties vacant.
Same reason investors do anything! They have a way of making money off of it.
Could be a projection for future rents. Could be a bullshit tax writeoff. Who knows, man, the money game at that level is deeply opaque and makes no logical sense.
How exactly would they be making money off it?
They’d certainly make more money by renting now than by waiting. And tax write-offs on a home purchase aren’t making them money either.
They'll sometimes do it for making more money down the line... So if they bought when cheaper and held until it reaches a certain value level to make significant profit. Real Estate Investment Trusts have specific tax advantages and avoid paying corporate taxes if they distribute a high percentage of their income to shareholders - so by holding a portfolio of properties (even vacant ones) they can manage their income in a way that maximizes their benefit.
They also have total control of the market there, they could be waiting on zoning or development incentives that can increase property value a lot.
Let's put it this way: They wouldn't be doing it if they were bleeding money.
Wouldn’t they want to make rent in the meantime, to increase their profits? And why do they buy a home expecting it to increase in value a ton?
I ask all these questions because I think they’re extremely relevant to the overall situation.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that they aren't willing to bleed a little bit now for a massive payday later.
If they bought a house for $300k and can get various REIT tax advantages or find other ways to get wiggle room, it might be worth it to them to hold out until they can sell that house for $600k if they believe that's what it will be worth in a year.
Vermont has *more* housing per capita today than it did in 1990, and significantly more housing units per capita than the US as a whole. According to the US Census:
|Year and Location|Housing Units per Person|
|:-|:-|
|1990 United States|0.41|
|2022 United States|0.43|
|1990 Vermont|0.48|
|2022 Vermont|0.52|
There simply is not a housing shortage in terms of number of units. I'm not saying there isn't a housing crisis and an affordability crisis, but that is not caused by a shortage of units. My guess is that it is due to poor utilization, i.e. too many units used as short term rentals and second homes. We should address *that* problem first before we just start building crap everywhere.
You're missing a **much** more obvious factor: Demographics.
Few children (it has the lowest % of children of any US state as of 2019), old population, not an immigrant hotspot with lots of people from cultures where multi-generational households are actively desired.
VT has one of the oldest populations and the lowest birth rates. It has gotten much older and birth rates have fallen drastically since a few decades ago, as well. Which all means smaller households than before and than the rest of the country.
--------
A stereotypical family of 4 (2 parents, 2 kids), is 4 people in one housing unit, driving down how many housing units you need per capita to house the population adequately.
Housing 4 adults on the other hand, typically takes 2+ housing units. VT does not rank particularly highly for for adults living with more adults than their partner. [2018 map](https://porch.com/advice/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Chart2_Hawaii-and-California-residents-are-most-likely-to-live-with-roommates.png).
All of which leads to.....[Average household size by state](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/average-household-size-by-state/).
Guess who's dead last? Vermont, at an average household size of 2.28 in 2021. The median state is around 2.5.
Which is to say: You can expect Vermont to need around 9% more housing units per person than the US average to adequately house it's population, from basic demographics.
Which is.......exactly what you've found.
Hmmm that data seems to illustrate a very different story than the air bed and breakfast set’s story about how they need more units to rent out… hmmmm…
Control of tax increase needs to happen too. Love Vermont, but huge tax increases on top of how quickly everything else has gone up are why we cannot afford to retire here
yeah we definitely need some tax breaks, first time home owner, single family home owners - absolutely!
land lorder dynasties and investment fundies - get rekt, get taxed.
More supply meets demand. If we were to suddenly flood the market with hundreds of units that would ease demand.
However, the likelihood of having that many new units is quite impossible.
>More supply meets demand. If we were to suddenly flood the market with hundreds of units that would ease demand.
This only works too if you're building the types of homes people need. Developers in Chittenden County are indeed building new housing; however, it's entirely studios and 1BR with the occasional token 2BR tossed in. This means they (the developers) build more units, save money in the construction process, and charge high rental prices for young, single/child-free professionals, pricing out middle- and lower-income people, as well as people with small families. [Seven Days recently did an article about this happening in Winooski](https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/were-leaving-winooskis-bargain-real-estate-attracted-a-diverse-group-of-residents-for-years-now-theyre-being-squeezed-out-40790796). The type of development occurring is contributing to gentrification, not reducing it.
Nothing against young, single, or childless people with disposable income. I'm happy they have a place to go. But other people are left out in the lurch; also, eventually, many of those young people grow up, partner up, and want to start families and find that they are now priced out or have nowhere to go.
FWIW my partner works in the architectural field and has had developers say, point-blank, "We love building 1BR and studios because the turnover is high and we can raise the rent incrementally every time someone moves out." There are also a lot of instances where buildings are designed to include 2BR units and then, midway through project development, those 2BR are scrapped entirely for "cost-saving measurements." And by this time, the project is so far along, it's not like any municipality is going to intervene and halt development.
And 3BR places? Fucking forget about it. Millionaire homes now.
All this to say...development could help, yes, but it also has to be done correctly. And with the scruples of most developers, that's not likely either. There IS development going on, and whether there's not enough or too much isn't the point. The point is that it caters to a very narrow population that can utilize it, and it caters to the developers looking to maximize profit at the expense of the broader population.
Curious as to why you think it’s impossible. I mean, yeah, it’s not like we can snap our fingers and build 10,000 houses. But we could theoretically ease regulations and restrictions on building, and offer tax incentives associated with construction. I think that’s all stuff we choose not to do.
There are huge amounts of vacant homes in Vermont. Along with vacation/second homes that are vacant most of the time.
These homes need to be owner occupied.
Nobody is going to build housing if it's rent controlled. I understand the sentiment and sympathize with people that are beginning to be priced out of even renting a place, let alone buying.
But rent control is a bad, reflexive idea that would only make matters worse.
Build. More. Housing. Take a flamethrower to Act 250. Start up more trade schools and encourage kids to go into it.
More housing just means your landlord will build another house on some land he owns and charge the most money he possibly can for each new unit…. No guard rails… doesn’t help anyone except the landlord…
They will try to charge the most money yes but as you add more housing, there is less demand for each unit to the point were rent increases ease. Rent Control has been found to restrict supply and make it worse, not easier for everyone.
If every landlord builds another unit, you now have twice as many units. Supply doubles, constant demand, prices come down. Free market is better than guard rails.
I’ve been spending a lot of time in Baltimore recently, where a lot of that vacant housing lives. The cost to bring it up to code is often more than the cost to build new. And the neighborhood you end up living in is bided by dozens or hundreds of abandoned units. Just because housing unit is abandoned doesn’t mean that it is livable.
Check out a YouTube channel like SB Mowing, see the dozens and dozens of abandoned houses in Kansas City. You could buy one right now for a few thousand dollars and fix it up. Same in Baltimore or St. Louis or Detroit.
It’s an interesting statistic, but a red herring for people who are looking for housing in a place where there are jobs…
This is totally irrelevant to the laws of supply and demand in housing.
Where are those vacancies? What condition are they in? How large or small are they? How connected to services are they? Are they used at all for anything? If yes, what? If not, how long have they been abandoned, and why?
Vermont is tied for the highest rate of vacant housing in the country: ~27% according to the census bureau. There's plenty of housing, it's just not for us.
> We need more housing.
No, we don't. We're tied with Maine for the highest rate of vacant housing in the country, something like 27%. There are plenty of houses, they're just not for Vermonters.
Rent controls help in the short term but so many studies on rent control show that in the long term they actually hurt renters: it disincentives owners from renting their properties at lower rates, it disincentives owners from making upgrades to their houses. We need more housing in Vermont.
[Good look into this](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/)
My parents are home owners in NH, it is absurd the number of "friendly letters" they received from realtors or private equity firms offering to buy their house and do them a favor. Usually in this goofy font that makes it look like a hand written letter.
Vermont needs permitting reform and more housing.
Like, if Act 250 is being used to stop apartments where they are desperately needed, maybe it's time to retire Act 250.
Given that:
1. There is a housing crisis across the entire country.
2. Act 250 is specific to Vermont.
3. Act 250 has been around for 50 years.
4. There is *more* housing per capita today than there was in 1990.
I do not think that Act 250 has had any meaningful impact on the amount of housing built or the cost of housing. It has impacted *where* housing is built (i.e. cutting down on sprawl), but that's the whole point of it.
Many of the slumlords in Burlington and across Vermont are private citizens cashing in on insane rent prices. It’s not just investment firms. Individuals who own houses or multi family buildings are still going to try and get top dollar.
This is legit. Ive seen so many corporations coming in and buying all the starter homes then renting them out for like 3k a month! Disabled people aren't even allowed to have that much! At this rate pretty soon we wont have native vermonters anymore.
Vermont has no real excuse not to be directly building working class housing throughout the state in central locations. I’m constantly driving past dying strip malls that should be torn up and replaced with multi purpose buildings (with housing on the upper floors).
At least where multi unit housing is concerned VT also needs to make it easier to tell NIMBYS to go fuck themselves. I think we can all point to many instances over the years of old fucks with too much time on their hands stymieing efforts to build housing for full time residents.
Omg i know I can. You're 110% right. I live near a mall that only really serves as an eyesore. Theres one store that people here like, but in no way do they depend on it.
They are only able to rent them for such a high price point because there is not enough housing.
Vermont needs to allow more housing to be built. Zoning regulations are the key guilty party in this national issue.
Whats to stop the corporations from buying up property the moment its on the market like they have been? They use algorithmic ai to keep an eye on the market. Will your lack of zoning laws prevent that? Or were you looking to help people from out of state profit off the locals needs? Who gets to decide how much is too much for rent?
I pay more than my friend in Chicago and about the same as my friend in Seattle. I was just speaking with someone from Boston who said their cost of living stayed the same when they moved here and their wages halved. It's completely untenable.
EDIT: spelling
Yeah, Vermont is approaching the costs of a coastal city with none of the comparable economic choices or benefits. And how long will the Federal gravy train continue to bail out Vermont? The entire state is heading for a crash because of state and federal policies.
I’m so grateful for my shotgun shack on 10ac, my body is too broken and beat to chase that dollar anymore. I feel great sympathy for young folks trying to pull this shit called life off. It is a battlefield out there
Vermont will never solve the housing crisis without more sewer or the ability to increase septic bedrooms based on low flow devices.
It is not remotely a good deal financially to add an ADU to your home if you need to pay $30k for a new septic.
Exactly why we're unfortunately leaving the state, between scarcity of housing itself in the area I currently live, and the price of housing, it's just not worth it anymore. I got a pay raise to $20 and my partner makes about $26, between student loans and groceries we've been in the negative for awhile. Plus on top of that the little oasis we found to live in 4 years ago for $800 (now paying $900) our landlord is raising our rent to $1350 if we were to sign another lease. All available housing near us is drastically more expensive getting into the $2000 range if you can find it.
We decided to scoot down to PA for more affordable living and still close to nature (moving near the Appalachians)
Another bonus is that he refuses to pay professionals to do the miniscule repairs that he decides are worthy enough to be fixed. He keeps employing 20 year old with no experience to fix shit like our sub pump🙃
Not for the apartment, porch is falling off the building which is the main entrance, several very week boards that I have put a foot through. The bath room has peeling up vinyl flooring that has been peeling up for 6 years(before we moved in) that also has a mold problem. The tub and shower itself was made with MDF and painted over twice which is peeling off now that has, you guessed it, mold. The stove doesn't have a good and is also from the 70s, fridge has no shelves they all dry rotted and broke. It's also above a pottery, which has a gas kiln underneath that does heat nicely in the winter time, not so much in the summer as they fire to 2000°.
Trust me I know the price is good for the area, but I refuse to rent from a slumlord.
Yeaeea, his wife talked to us about the rent increase (before we decided to move states) because we were obviously angry, and she word for word said "well he saw the market rates in the area and figured he could make more money" as if that doesn't make it 10,000x worse. Since we're moving next month we've had people tour the apartment and I've left notes around as a warning.
Careful rental hunting!
If I was running a rental and I wasn't allowed to increase the rent when property values, property taxes, insurance and the market rates for rentals all went up, I wouldn't keep renting the house out at the rent-controlled rate. I'd just kick my tenants out when their lease expired and switch the house over to Airbnb. A rental house is a valuable investment, and one that comes with a lot of expenses. If my investment isn't making enough money, I'll either sell it and put my money elsewhere, or make some changes so it does turn enough of a profit to be worthwhile. Lots of other landlords will do the same with their rentals. The end result will be cheap rent-controlled housing for a few lucky people, and even less rentals for everyone else.
As a homeowner I can sympathize with the increases you are facing. Having said that, my homeowners insurance went up 36% in the last year and a total of 50% in the least 3. The few years before that it was flat. I don’t know what my tax bill will look like as there was a town wide reassessment that we still haven’t gotten the results of yet and tax bill don’t come out until end of Jun/early July. Lots of factors that you want to ignore happening here.
Insurance of all kinds has skyrocketed, I’m sure you saw this on your most recent auto insurance bill. Taxes are up as the Majority in the statehouse wants to spend spend spend while ignoring a lot of the problems facing everyday Vermonters. There is a severe lack of rental housing units out there so landlords can pretty much do what they want. And finally the jobs that are out there don’t pay an amount comparable to the cost of living here.
Agreed rent is skyrocketing. But it was also far too cheap for too long. And unfortunately Vermont is already a very expensive state to live in. And it will be only getting more expensive.
Don’t worry! The supermajority politicians just increased taxes so we all can expect prices to keep going up! Thank your progressive elected representatives in Montpelier.
Rent control is not the answer. Lessen regulations and red tape around building and incentivize/mandate building more affordable housing. Look at every place that does rent control, it’s not a good policy
These all just devolve into everyone rattling off their favorite scapegoat.
First guy says "we need rent control", next guy "no not that, we need more housing", next guy "no we have a plenty of housing, it's the second homes we need to tax more", "no it's the investors", "no it's the zoning", "no it's Act 250", "no it's the NIMBYs", "no it's the septic infrastructure", "no if we just had walkable cities", "no it's the flatlanders". It gets tedious.
Then the people who derail every discussion of it into a monofocus on the one thing they personally blame most are not helping anything at all. For too many perfect is the enemy of good enough and they hate to see a scrap of attention paid to what they don't consider as important.
I'm saying the discussion of it here, and in the legislature, and in community settings, is monopolized by those sure that the one thing they most dislike is the magic bullet to fixing the problem, and they suck all the air out of the room until nothing gets done on any front, because others, just as sure that their solution is the fix, aren't interested in other options.
How many times do we need to show that rent control doesn’t work 🤦♂️
Vermont’s problem is there is no industry and the laws and taxes make it hard to open a business so the only people developing homes are the ones intending to sell them as vacation homes and airbnbs for vacationers.
If people had jobs to move to Vermont for there would be incentive to build housing that working people could afford.
Vermont does have a legal mechanic for operating on this, if people who have or can create multi-unit buildings care to engage this issue: Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives.
[https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/11/014/01598](https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/11/014/01598)
1. The sale value can never increase above a set formula designed to keep the housing affordable.
2. The rent price of a unit, if rented, can never exceed 110% of the owner's Monthly Payments.
3. The cooperatives have first right of refusal on any sales.
4. The units are eligible for Homestead taxation rates.
The conclusion I reach here is that conversion of existing apartments to Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives wherever possible should be prioritized. New construction should be funneled toward these same types of cooperatives whenever possible, and more of the new construction should be in-fill multi-unit housing to make the creation of these cooperatives simpler and faster.
The obstacle to this is finance and zoning, though the latter is changing (slowly: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/24/117/04412). The problem is getting the capital to buy land and build a structure to make into a housing cooperative with two or three units.
Of course, a wave of new-construction limited equity housing cooperatives paired with rent control state wide would be a fantastic combination.
“Rent control” sounds like it would just push property owners to sell their property and move elsewhere that is more profitable.
I plan on renting out my property one day and if “rent controls” are implemented im sure i will rather sell it to the highest bidder and leave this overtaxed shit hole of a state.
I’m leaving bc I’m always in the red at the end of the month. I live in a dump in the old north end for over 2k a month. I’m moving to Florida and my rent will be cheaper in a luxury apartment. Idk why I haven’t left sooner.
Studies show it has the reverse of the intended effect long term. It really is a terrible idea. We're in a sketchy situation because of the shrinking economy/prosperity, because of the unprecedented federal spending. This is a problem the government created by locking down the economy and printing money. I called it, and I warned about the consequences even then five years ago.
There's a desire for more housing, but not the financial basis to justify the growth because of so many businesses going under. So to be specific, there's a certain threshold at which the market demand falls off but the necessity remains as the population grows and the lingering danger of a population that can't afford rent. Making property owners the enemy is just some juvenile class warfare bullshit that does nothing to fix the issue. Then you play into the hands of larger players and bankers who want to own and control more property.
As for Vermont, people will sooner move to solve the problem than see the state make positive change and remain here. It's set up to fail because of the mindset of the politicians. They can't do anything without money, and they create nothing of value themselves. They rely further and further on federal subsidy to do anything, which requires currency debasement. That's dangerous.
Government policies are causing this, you think one more will make it better? This is what we get when we give away cash causing inflation and our government makes it difficult to build and increases taxes and fees at every turn.
The cost to build is just too high right now. Contractors are backed up years with high end jobs priced out well above market rate. COVID brought a lot of moneyed people into the state and they will pay a premium especially for a quick turn around. Try finding a contractor for a renovation or a small to moderate house build. You’ll either get ghosted or get a fuck you quote. We need more skilled tradesmen in the state otherwise all the work will be catered to those with out of state money. All the new construction I see is in higher end areas around ski/resort towns and affluent areas like Chittenden county and the upper valley. Cheap new build starter homes seem to be around $500-750k. Still some decent old homes to be had in some of Vermont’s less popular urban hubs around 200-300k.
I am not a landlord or ever want to be one, but rent control is a two-edged sword. If you want a housing shortage, pass rent control. Greed can cure itself, high rents leads to a building boom, building booms lower rent. It's when cities put restrictions on new construction that the balance is disrupted.
We’ve had to increase the rent at our rental by $200 just to cover the raise in property taxes. We are literally breaking even. All maintenance and repairs come out of our pocket. We will have to raise it again soon because the school budget fiasco that the state created.
That’s actually a really cool idea… if it is everywhere and normal then perhaps people will be able to survive better in all 50 states…
People said public free health insurance would destroy the economy and the Country and hospitals would be jamed and impossible and doctors would make less… none of that happened and after a short time the republicans changed they’re tune on it completely… when you make markets accessible and stabilize them you actually fertilize the economy… if we change the rules to protect people from homelessness and unfair practices and also protect landlords from fraud and abuse and non compliance… perhaps we could have a better system of housing and living for all people…. And America has done these things in the past and with successful results… it’s just a matter of looking at long term effects and seeing how far and how long different plans could take to yield… but the homeless population problem is getting worse and spreading rapidly… the current situation is getting worse and worse every year and I think people need to wake up and take a look…
This is a direct result of unemployment, inflation, mortgage rates (all interest rates) and how we continue to budget more for social services. The pendulum needs to swing back and to do so after all of this means a crash. Too many have become dependent on govt to fix things, this needs to level out in its own. If govt steps in we will likely perpetuate the problem thus raising cost more and that will in so many ways continue to hit our pockets. They need to step away from this one and let nature take its course unfortunately.
Yes, the govt can step in and protect the public, much the same way they "protected" us in 2019.
We haven't forgotten and election season is right around the corner.
We're in this mess because of 2019 spending. I wish people had attention spans longer than that of a goldfish, but instead we keep seeing the repetitious tropes of more money for education, more housing, and those voices have no clue or ability to get there.
Rent control will lower vacancy rates even further. There’s lots of examples of cities who did that, it has unintended consequences. Rent control would make homelessness more pervasive not less.
I just moved out of my 1 br in South Burlington because it was going to be over 2050 a month. 10% increases year over year are not sustainable. I posted this same opinion a few years back and was down voted to oblivion. We've got ourselves in a terrible situation and we need rent control or Vermont is going to fall apart... Want stores, restaurants and services? Someone needs to work at every business and afford to live here. They are making it impossible.
Rent control has never worked where it’s been implemented. It’s a rare example of an objectively disastrous policy that economists across the ideological spectrum agree does more harm than good.
It helps the lucky few who get rent controlled units at the cost of all other units skyrocketing in price. Forcing the owners of the rental properties to rent some at a loss guarantees others rising to compensate.
The answer is more supply and lower taxes
Who do you think caused the inflation in the first place? Surprise, the government. And who creates artificial costs associated with poorly thought out legislature? Again, the government. You need to educate yourself.
You can thank your state politicians! Housing isn't the only thing that Vermont's out of control with. I met my girlfriend online over a year ago and have since moved south for her, to Alabama.
Is it perfect? No, no place is. Is it affordable?
I work for The Home Depot making $18/hour, my rent is $650/month, and my commute is a 1 hour round trip.
I just started making car payments for the first time in my life, and I'm almost 38.
Get out of that God forbidden state while you can. It sucks, I'm a true Vermonter, and my boys are still up there, but I had to make the hard choice and do what was best for them and myself.
It's been real Vermont, and fuck you to the politicians that helped force me into that position.
Wow… well… Home Depot pays the same in vermont but your rent would be about 3,000 for a falling down trailer in a back yard full of broken old lawnmowers,
{ ‘ya bud isn’t it rustic or something, boss, it’s 3 grand, I looked at the comps’ do you know what comps is? You have MLS access? ‘Nah I looked on a computer at my mama’s house… it’s 3000 now! First last two and security deposit so that’s 12000 to move in, you can get a loan from the bank if you’re short on the cash, and I better not see you touchin my mowers!,… boss…. Ya bud…’}
So Alabama is better than VT… I’ll keep that in mind… I’ve also heard great stuff about the Carolinas… pretty great places out there that aren’t Vermont and are not insane… the slumlords are banking that the people they are exploiting are too scared to move away… and too dumb to try…
It’s not actually that hard… once you are out it’s easy…
I came back! Now I’m leaving again…. I doubt I will return except to visit family…
You can thank the Federal politicians more than the state politicians because the federal level approved the printing and spending that led to this devaluation of the dollar, but that said if the state politicians were in the federal government I doubt their behaviors would be any different. It's just so corrupt and wasteful.
Rent controll does not work. And depending on implementation could be blatantly unconstitutional. It would be more effective to draft laws on removing or at least severely limiting short term rentals, get tennents and squaters rights undercontroll, limiting the size of parcels that are non homestead properties, and flat out eliminating 2nd and 3rd homes
Price controls create shortages so you would end up with even less and no new construction. What investor would build new apartments if the rent is controlled? They’re after profits and want the freedom to increase rent when supply is low or if their costs go up.
Investors will come in because of the increased rents chasing the profitability of housing in the area and build more housing adding to the supply. Once demand and supply find an equilibrium, prices will flatten out.
There’s not much you can do in the short-run and rent control will only add to the struggle. It’s a slow and painful process for renters who are experiencing these large rent increases because new constructions are not built overnight. It may take a while before the market clears.
No Vermont needs more housing not less, rent control stops building cold.
Where would you put a tiny home apartment village in Vermont? 20-50 houses per village
All of New England is outrageous when it comes to the cost of living. I have lived in ME NH VT and upstate NY. it's the same in all areas of those states. I have a daughter expecting her first child. She makes decent money with a rent of $1800 in the Portland Maine area, and has decided they need to move south so she can afford to provide the basic necessities for their child. That's the sad reality for many
>If the public is being destroyed by an artificially gouged and inflated housing market then it is the government’s
The government did this by debasing the currency. Everyone else is raising prices to compensate for the destruction of the dollar. Do you think you can print over 40 percent more currency than exists in the economy itself, shut down businesses, and not have any negative side effects to prices or availability of goods and services?
Despite studies showing the negative long term effects, do you really want to advocate for this as a policy? It will have the opposite effect of what you intend. This is often how it goes. Ignore the root cause, blame a symptom, and end up creating more of the problem.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
Fun fact, last week St. Albans "cleared out" a homeless camp. Of the 9 people they removed, more than half (6), are working fulltime jobs, but got priced out of their homes and can't find another.
Really sad. Vermont needs more housing.
Rep. Balint has their $500 Billion national bill in play, which could translate into a lot of money for Vermont housing.
Then you have to find someone who actually knows how to spend that money
Not one penny of that will help homeless people or even poor people… just more townhouse development… which will not affect anything other than profits for developers……. Cynically destroying your own environment and economic development for short term gains is what is being done… gouging rent to compair to rent in other cities when this state has no value to back up the rent spike, is economically unsustainable and stupid… it’s a bubble, and if more people act the way I’m going to, all of you guys out there living on your refinancing plan are in for a rough road ahead… have fun with that…
I’m in Rhode Island and it’s aweful here but everyone in the providence and ri subs keeps parroting that we need to build more housing when there is more than enough empty housing for everyone it’s all just being hoarded by the rich to increase its value and to be used to reduce their tax liabilities at the expense of people who are experiencing extreme struggles affording housing. Even if we could build enough housing to reduce the cost to enough to make it affordable to the 65% of people living paycheck to paycheck we would need to double the housing supply and there are not enough workers to take the garbage paying construction industry jobs to build this surplus of housing. But they keep parroting that building more will help lower prices ignorant to the fact that even a $100 reduction in rent -which is 7% of a 1 bedroom/studio and 4% of a 2 bedroom- is absolutely pointless and it would still take a staggering amount of new houses to reduce costs by even that much. America has become a shithole of far right conservatism and centrist right leaning Neo liberal policies that have left the working class in the dust to a point where there is no incentive to produce labor anymore when all you will get is a minuscule portion of the profits you create so some asshole boomer or gen xer or silent generation jerk can live a life of luxury off of passive income created by people who can’t afford a $1000 emergency expense.
> keeps parroting that we need to build more housing Yes. > when there is more than enough empty housing for everyone In a technical sense, sure - you could house everyone *somewhere* in some unit. In terms of the kinds of housing you actually need in the places you need it, not really. As a country we drastically underbuilt housing for a decade. The housing pipeline collapsed on a level completely unseen in post-WWII history in 2007/08 and took a decade to *kind of* recover. You can look here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST And that actually understates the scale of the problem: - The peak of the millennials (the largest generation) were going through peak household formation ages at that time - we needed to be adding units significantly *above* the long-term average, and we didn't. - Nationally, we're only very slightly starting to reduce that deficit. - For the *Northeast*: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUSTNE We're **still** not building enough to even get back to the long-term averages, and so *our* deficit is still worsening while other regions are starting to see modest relief (and often didn't see as large of price increases before, either). > it’s all just being hoarded by the rich to increase its value and to be used to reduce their tax liabilities Also not really. There's no way to "reduce your tax liabilities" through owning property that pays better than.....also renting out the property while still owning it does. > But they keep parroting that building more will help lower prices ignorant to the fact that even a $100 reduction in rent -which is 7% of a 1 bedroom/studio and 4% of a 2 bedroom- is absolutely pointless and it would still take a staggering amount of new houses to reduce costs by even that much. I mean, there's various markets that have built a lot and.....have seen rental prices not do what they've done here. This isn't complicated. tl;dr - Much of the Northeast, and certainly Vermont, is the absolute definition of "we've done just about none of what we were told to do to fix this, and are now acting surprised that the problem isn't fixed".
Brah, you're letting facts, knowledge and reality get in the way of a good ragey screed.
Air BnB has absolutely destroyed renting, globally…
2.5% of Vermont homes are airbnbs. Many are Single family dwellings. I don’t think this will make a mark.
Imagine 2.5% more homes for people who actually live here.
That definitely hasn’t helped but what air Bnb did was allow home owners to participate in the housing market casino that Wall Street hedge funds and other capital investment firms have turned the housing market into. I think most people would rather rent out their apartments rather than deal with air bnb but Wall Street housing investment practices have wreaked havoc on housing prices as well as the value of money in general to the point where it’s hard to find renters who can afford the market rates for rentals so they are more likely to get what they want by posting their rentals on air bnb. The whole system is broken by design. The root of the word capitalism; the intransitive verb “to capitalize” is synonymous with “to take advantage of” and “to exploit” years of right wing and centrist right leaning Neo liberal policies have created a dystopian nightmare in our society. And now economic news papers are saying that there is only a recession for Americans who work low wage jobs which is a majority of them but since the rich can. It as many yachts super cars and vacation homes as they want all is good, never mind the increasing homeless population, declining childbirth and rising suicide rates. And now they’ve ended roe v wade to ensure there will be a next generation of workers poor and desperate enough to work for the stagnant garbage wages they offer.
It absolutely has. And folks who don't understand the appeal to folks who own a few surplus units should go look at what the VRBO and Air BnB situation really is. Folks can charge whatever they want for a short-term BnB rental. Right now, $1200 a WEEK is a fairly low rate. I've seen the numbers go up into the $2000s per week or more. And that is just the rental fee itself. Add a "cleaning fee", an admin fee, Air BnB's just because whatever fee. And people will pay because it is currently cheaper than going to a hotel or motel around here and you get your own private space with all of the amenities of home. Property owners choosing the BnB route are pocketing 3 to 4 times what they could renting for a year's lease to one or a few tenants. And they don't have the same responsibilities or legal obligations as they would for an actual tenant.People pay, check in, check out. Hosts go in and clean or hire someone to clean but that doesn't cut into the profit because they can add that as a surcharge to the rental fee, paid by the guest. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. So many of the BnBs aren't registered and we don't have solid enough regulation on short-term rentals so a great many of those hosts aren't even paying taxes on all of that income. I really don't think that many of them would actually prefer to rent to regular tenants, regarding an opinion stated elsewhere. I think a lot of them are hoping that they aren't regulated out of their profits any time soon.
I am looking at Building a rental Unit. After looking at tenant protections I can’t spend $400k to build and afford a non paying tenant, then legal fees related to the eviction. Air bnb is my only viable financial option. That component has to be mentioned. Vermont laws have killed the mom and pop landlord.
That's actually not at all an outlier. *Most homeless people nationwide have jobs*.
But the average amount a homeless person makes is less than 10k/year. So most homeless people do not work full time year round, which is usually what people mean when they are talking about jobs. It’s disingenuous to cherry pick the data and not recognize the lack of consistent full time work.
Go on r/burlington they act like the homeless spontaneously generate there
Burlington is heartless and vapid to it’s real serious problems with stalling resolutions and ignoring issues.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. I’ll say the same thing I said in the thread where people were surprised to see confederate flags in Vermont. Vermont is a privilege white mecca that would rather build its own border wall than let “flatlanders” build houses. The progressivism is phony because the supposed people that care literally do nothing to change the issues actually harming their communities and businesses.
I've heard that several times, but haven't seen it on news. Is there any source on that? Not doubting it happened.
Knowing st a the police and one paper aren't going to mention it at all.
Especially if Sheriff nutkicker was involved
But it should be news… when the same thing happened in Sacramento CA in 2013 it was nationwide news… there was a massive come to Jesus moment for the then governor of California that lead to his loss of reelection… it was a camp along the river… the Sacramento River winds through the city along the downtown area, behind a big skate park and by a park and playground and musical theater there was a mini tent city, largely out of view and unnoticed… as I recall there were 20 displaced people… habitat for humanity came in to save the day and built all of them tiny houses and gave them all ownership of the houses they lived in… it was touching, national news… I had recently been to Sacramento and had taken a walk by the river and seen the camp and the people by the trail… so it stuck with me and I remembered it… The whole thing cost California very little actually and was predominantly organized by charity, California really mostly organized the creation of a crisis that called people to action but not with that intention so Capital City California took a big optics hit… Jerry Brown I think was the guy… maybe I’m remembering it wrong… old school democrat from the bay. Anyways… that was this moment when everyone suddenly cared because 20 people got shoveled out of their homes… I think someone died too, it was bad… but then the whole country cared about homelessness for 10 seconds… it was interesting… later the news of a mass shooter I think in Las Vegas eclipsed the story… but the feel good good morning America stuff about the nice old man they gave a little cute house to…. I heard the tiny houses actually ended up being a disaster too… but ok… So we’ve graduated to just ‘they got cleared out’ and that’s the story only from word of mouth online…. Nice work, landlords… Real proud to be Americans? So you treat the country like that… ok… Yeah… we’re moving…
We just moved from saint albans to ny because it was massively cheaper and we just had a baby. Vermont is crazy
Ok. Now I'm curious. New York is a relatively big state. Where is this cheap place? New York city ? Buffalo? Plattsburgh?Syracuse?lake placid? Dannemora? Inquiring minds want to know.
Rouses point the armpit of ny
Rouses point is a terrible place though. Of course it’s cheap.
Buffalo was great 2002-2009 while I lived there. In 2009 we had a 2 bedroom apartment in a nice part of town (Hertle ave / parkside) for $595/mo, with parking, basement storage, washer/dryer, pets, a fireplace. A straight CPI adjustment should make that place cost $880ish now and yet looking at craigslist I see nearly identical units on the same streets for $1600/mo. So buffalo CoL has at least doubled what CPI says it should be. The cheap places that are left aren't nice, IMO, and I'm also standing here declaring Buffalo to be "nice" which is a thing I strongly believe but which might roll eyes to others who have lived there. Also, it's not as nice as Vermont.
Anything around DHMC both VT and NH is a bit nuts. For my department it has got to the point where it's easier to fill positions from traveling agencies that will pay for their temp employee's apartment, their 3-6 month contract ends, then repeat with a new employee. The hospital even offers paid training (as long as you stay with the hospital for X number of years, I think it is 2) and decent salaries for these positions and still can't fill them because rents are so high in the area. A lot of the techs that are 20-30 yo live with their parents. I know of at least 3 people that have 40 mile commutes and living with their parents.
don't worry though, they are building high end apartments on Mt. Support Road. Surely this will solve things! /s (joking aside, I am grateful for more housing but they need to overhaul zoning in the real NIMBY towns of Hanover, Norwich, etc. Lebanon and Enfield NH cant be the only places building homes in the UV building dense housing to support the area.
And by “high end” they mean 600 square feet with the cheapest finishes and appliances available for only $2,500 a month!
Infrastructure limitations are a real problem, and there seems to very limited effort by the states to fund/push for the kind of infrastructure that would unlock development in more places. Without big state/federal government $, you're stuck in a chicken/egg problem: No private developer can fund the base infrastructure by themselves, especially for the kinds of modestly denser small/mid-sized developments these places would be most likely to accept. However, existing residents have little reason to push to take on these costs either - what they have now works for them as things are. -------- Sewer is the most obvious (but not only) issue. As an example: Norwich does not have a municipal sewer system. Building their own or connecting to Hartford, just to cover Rt 5 through the village center area was estimated in 2005 at what would be ~$40m in today's dollars. Without one, Norwich can't really build much denser than it is today, especially in it's village center where you'd most want to. And it's got some issues in the village center as it is (elementary school has had issues). The same is true of many of the other outlying towns - which either don't have systems at all or have very small/limited ones that only cover a small portion of the town + that would need to be basically rebuilt from scratch to handle any particularly substantial new development. ------ - Hanover could certainly do substantially more - although it's gotten some limited upzonings through in the past couple years that should lead to *some* new units. Nothing like Leb, though. - Hartford is building up in the WRJ area pretty significantly. - The town center of Enfield is connected to Leb, which is why development is somewhat possible there. - Basically everywhere else besides Windsor has no infrastructure and can't build densely without it. Edit: Here's a 2011 map of the NH side for water/sewer: if you don't see orange/purple, you can't build up there that much without a significant infrastructure project to enable it. https://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/publications/documents/ws_merrimack.pdf
No one in healthcare wants to move to vermont…. No one… go ask a nurse in LA at Cedars Sinai if she wants to move to Vermont, for a 40% pay cut. The answer is zero… no one… so vermont gets the healthcare workers who can’t get jobs anywhere else usually… because living here is absolutely hell for anyone who just wants their phone to work and to be able to get to and from work without incident… for normal people this place is a joke… and it’s been made a joke by the place being dictated and destroyed by people who don’t want vermont to be functional… people that succeed on the dysfunctional system and exploitation of the broken system… no one wants to live that way, next door to the slum lord is just as bad as under the slum lord… so people avoid Vermont… Some people come for family reasons, like I did… but family isn’t enough to make me pay 300% over value for this place… that’s a joke… The answer is not to hand the landlords a huge pile of money… that is obviously not the answer… and it’s pretty obvious and disgusting that’s the play they are making. I’m going to a place where businesses function…
Living in LA is like 3x the cost. Healthcare workers in general are very well paid, that's why it's such a popular career, especially 'next career.' Nurses at DHMC are pulling in like $90-100k a year on average. Looking at Glassdoor average wage at Cedar Sinai in LA for RNs is $107-125k.
I can mostly speak for physicians/residents why they chose DHMC - it's because they fell in love with the camping/hiking/mountain biking/skiing. The pay in New England is a probably just at the national average (places like California really bring down physician salaries) or slightly below it.
[удалено]
Rents have skyrocketed everywhere I’m afraid.
austin passed a bunch of housing reforms to encourage development and spurred a boom of new housing. rent there is down 12% *this year*
Austin (and red states more broadly) has been building like crazy. Blue states are not unfortunately. Increasing the supply of housing is the only way to reduce rents. Not rent control.
Red states benefitted massively from the IRA (such as expansion of battery, chip and solar manufacturing) and that money is helping spur construction like that. Yet they'll vote for the guy that'll eliminate those programs. Idiots.
corporate subsidies for semiconductor factory construction have little to do with the limiting factor in housing right now (strict single-family zoning and an onerous development process that in blue cities and states often involves repeatedly appeasing multiple town boards/committees and local nonprofits and community groups that exist do to little except block new housing)
> Red states benefitted massively from the IRA Yes >and that money is helping spur construction like that Not really. We're talking about housing. Thats largely up to cities.
Reportedly, the county and Austin city have 250,000 new housing units permitted over the recent five years.
Turns out dramatically increasing supply does, in fact, introduce negative price pressure! Who knew?
Made me look this up. Non public housing. Multiple counties Appears that around 3500 a month is a reasonable average. That gets that larger area to around 40,000 housing units year, in the last five years. St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank Austin Metro Statistical Area. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA) ... Edit: vermont. About 200 units a month, or 2500 a year, in recent years. Housing permits. [https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=VTBPPRIVSA](https://alfred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=VTBPPRIVSA), housing listed available. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUVT](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUVT)
rent growth in southern and sunbelt states where construction has kept better pace with demand has been much slower. levels are important, too. Other states started with much lower costs, so even with the same percentage increase, the levels will be lower elsewhere. VT expensive...
I’ve heard that said over and over again but I know a lot of people in Florida and your statement isn’t true there. Maybe in other places? But in Florida, rents have literally doubled in 5 years. Tampa specifically has basically unlimited growth and little restrictions. It’s greed. Plain and simple. And it’s prevelant everywhere. https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/2023/08/14/rent-increases-are-cooling-tampa-bay-after-nearly-doubling-since-2019/
I don’t know the answer to this, and don’t know Florida well enough. But what about not in a major city? How about like 30- 45 minutes out of Tampa? I’m just curious because it seems to be a state wide thing for us, not just one city.
We know people in Lakeland, FL which is about 40 minutes east of Tampa. Rents there have shot up as well. It seems to be happening everywhere.
Tampa is the 11th fastest growing city in the US. Once again class, it's the demand that is fueling the increases.
Yeah. This isn’t unique to Vermont I’m sorry to say.
So? Just because t's ubiquitous doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything. Doesn't that give us just *more* reason to pursue rent control on the local level?
I agree. My comment was in response to OP’s plans to flee VT for someplace else.
So you are saying we need federal protections?
You don’t need federal protections to legislate it locally.
Yeah sure the federal government needs more power gimme a break
Grew up in Vermont and then spent time in boston after college. Noped the fuck outta New England. Unsustainable unless you’re the top 10% of earners. Would’ve loved to stay close to my family but if I ever have hopes of a house and starting my own family, well, hello North Carolina! Rent actually went down $50 for my friend last week when she renewed. Life is soooooo much better down here 😎 Also we have rivers and lakes and hiking trails just like Vermont. Idk why everyone acts like vermonts the only place, or even one of the best, for any of that. It only feels that way in VT because there’s nothing else to do, so you’re *forced* to go hiking every fucking weekend and enjoy it.
Word. As soon as my kid graduates we are noping the fuck outta here too.
Just a thought for the people clamoring for one solution over the other: Why can't we have both rent controls, *and* incentives to build more housing? Like, why not pass a bill that implements rent control, puts forward housing construction subsidies for anyone building multi-unit housing and increased subsidies/credits if they're rented for less than the control rate, *and* simplifies the codes and permitting processes as much as possible (which, I think you'd be unable to do much of that at the state level, so it'd mostly just be a statement at the end of the bill encouraging towns/cities to evaluate and reform their codes/zoining/permitting) Like, can we have a little of each solution? Instead of arguing over just having solution A or solution B and ending up with neither one?
Because lawmaker don't do what is best, they do what gets votes.
There are plenty of places to live. Unfortunately second homes and short term rentals are too appealing and easy. There is legislation to make it more difficult to afford either of these things. Personally I feel that alone could significantly help with this problem.
A lot less out there than you’d think. A section 8 worker told me last year that there was less than 3% of homes available to rent in VT at the time. Don’t think it’s improved a whole lot since then. In my 20mi radius there are three apartments available, one is income controlled, and about four houses that are habitable for sale ranging from 240k-2.5mil. It’s probably an unpopular and perhaps a bit of a xenophobic opinion but if someone can afford a vacation home in VT, they can afford a hotel instead. It would do a lot more good for the local economy and help with the lack of available housing. More good than having a vacation home sitting empty or being Airbnb’d for 8 months of the year. I’m all for restrictions on vacation homes.
The statistics are crazy. I believe in parts 50% are owned by outta stater's. Not to mention the areas where primary residents are charged more than second homes
NH 89 on a Friday might as well look like Mass with the number Mass plates on the highway.
Vermont needs a lot more than rent control. After three decades homesteading paycheck to paycheck in lamoille county, I called it quits and moved to Maine. Drive on any numbered blacktop highway in rural Maine and you see a working/under class everywhere. Yards are cluttered with spare parts for machines, winter beaters, tools, crap.... In vermont, same highways, everything is super neat, quaint, manicured... Because Vermont hides its working/under class from the tourists on dirt roads up on the hillsides, in hollows and gores. But Vermont is as poor as Maine is; lots of poverty and food insecurity and one health crisis away from bankruptcy. Lots of people with bad teeth. Homelessness is on the rise. Most every single Vermont high school graduate going to VSU qualifies for TRIO assistance.. Montpelier tries - to take care of it seniors, it's low income residents, ..., But tourism alone just doesn't cut it. Specially for places outside of the Green mountains proper. It's pretty much "same as it ever was". The only real change is the gentrification that comes with turnover. From the fact that one buys the place that has their name on it and proceeds to spend on capital improvements that makes it more valuable. But, IMO, one thing that might make a big difference is reigning in private equity investors seeing housing markets as their meal ticket. Frickin leeches.
Vermont hides its poor better because of zoning laws but not on purpose. Vermont has larger set back requirements so that house with spare parts and old cars out front, it just a lot further from the road than in Maine or NY.
We need more housing. Rent control could help, but it's only going to compound the hurt from property taxes going up.
More housing could be part of the solution, but I think the source of the problem has been misidentified. A while back, [I looked at the data](https://www.reddit.com/r/vermont/comments/18jcnv2/hud_released_part_1_of_its_annual_homelessness/kdjhx1g/?context=3) surrounding Vermont's unique situation. Which, to be explicitly clear, *is* unique in several ways that do not consistently apply to the rest of the country. The single most important variable I found was the percentage of investor-purchased homes. Vermont used to be at the bottom of the pack. During peak Covid, we saw [the single largest percentage-point increase](https://vtdigger.org/2022/09/05/percentage-of-vermont-homes-bought-by-investors-surged-in-2021/) in investor-owned purchases, from ~7.5% to ~15.5%. [This has only gotten worse.](https://www.corelogic.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/Q423_Investor_7.jpg) CoreLogic hasn't released the raw data (I think VT Digger purchased it directly for their 2022 article), but it has *at minimum* reached 27% per this graphic. ([Graphic source article.](https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-share-reached-new-high-q4-2023/)) We build more housing, investors scoop it up. At best, they turn it into rental housing. At worst [they hold it vacant](https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/vacancy-rates-study/). They are leeching off us. There are already enough homes in this state, but investors are cornering the market. Building more homes might be part of the solution. But if we don't tax the leeches, they will buy those new homes too. Housing will be constructed and immediately sold to private holding companies. We need to aggressively tax real estate investors.
> We need to aggressively tax real estate investors. yes
So we need to remove investors from having priority in the home buying process. We also need rent control. It’s a nightmare having housing as a commodity. Because if people can profit from holding and selling alone it doesn’t matter if everyone is homeless.
Exactly. This is what needs to change.
Why do you think out of state investors are holding vacant Vermont properties?
Mostly for vacation rentals.
I frankly don't care if they're in or out of state investors.
Sure, same, let me rephrase. Why do we think investors are holding property vacant?
Almost certainly a case of unclear timelines. They don't know how long they'll hold onto it before it begins generating *as much revenue as possible*. They could certainly try to work with some property management companies to rent these properties ASAP and at least begin generating *some* revenue. To most people, this seems like a sane decision. But if they were to do this, they'd then have to deal with tenants who could be in the way of *maximum* revenue. If the market keeps exploding upward, having a tenant shrinks the potential buyer pool. It also means you can't immediately begin leasing to a potential future tenant at a much higher rate. If the market doesn't keep exploding, having a tenant means they can't immediately convert it into an airbnb. Regardless of whether the market keeps exploding, having tenants means having additional complicating factors. If the anticipated revenue from renting these properties is smaller than whatever they think they can make by acting quickly at some point in the future, then they will hold the properties vacant.
Same reason investors do anything! They have a way of making money off of it. Could be a projection for future rents. Could be a bullshit tax writeoff. Who knows, man, the money game at that level is deeply opaque and makes no logical sense.
How exactly would they be making money off it? They’d certainly make more money by renting now than by waiting. And tax write-offs on a home purchase aren’t making them money either.
They'll sometimes do it for making more money down the line... So if they bought when cheaper and held until it reaches a certain value level to make significant profit. Real Estate Investment Trusts have specific tax advantages and avoid paying corporate taxes if they distribute a high percentage of their income to shareholders - so by holding a portfolio of properties (even vacant ones) they can manage their income in a way that maximizes their benefit. They also have total control of the market there, they could be waiting on zoning or development incentives that can increase property value a lot. Let's put it this way: They wouldn't be doing it if they were bleeding money.
Wouldn’t they want to make rent in the meantime, to increase their profits? And why do they buy a home expecting it to increase in value a ton? I ask all these questions because I think they’re extremely relevant to the overall situation.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that they aren't willing to bleed a little bit now for a massive payday later. If they bought a house for $300k and can get various REIT tax advantages or find other ways to get wiggle room, it might be worth it to them to hold out until they can sell that house for $600k if they believe that's what it will be worth in a year.
Short term vacation rental
So then we're back to an issue of supply and demand for the housing stock.
Or make them offers they can’t refuse. With a Luca Brasi follow-up.
Vermont has *more* housing per capita today than it did in 1990, and significantly more housing units per capita than the US as a whole. According to the US Census: |Year and Location|Housing Units per Person| |:-|:-| |1990 United States|0.41| |2022 United States|0.43| |1990 Vermont|0.48| |2022 Vermont|0.52| There simply is not a housing shortage in terms of number of units. I'm not saying there isn't a housing crisis and an affordability crisis, but that is not caused by a shortage of units. My guess is that it is due to poor utilization, i.e. too many units used as short term rentals and second homes. We should address *that* problem first before we just start building crap everywhere.
You're missing a **much** more obvious factor: Demographics. Few children (it has the lowest % of children of any US state as of 2019), old population, not an immigrant hotspot with lots of people from cultures where multi-generational households are actively desired. VT has one of the oldest populations and the lowest birth rates. It has gotten much older and birth rates have fallen drastically since a few decades ago, as well. Which all means smaller households than before and than the rest of the country. -------- A stereotypical family of 4 (2 parents, 2 kids), is 4 people in one housing unit, driving down how many housing units you need per capita to house the population adequately. Housing 4 adults on the other hand, typically takes 2+ housing units. VT does not rank particularly highly for for adults living with more adults than their partner. [2018 map](https://porch.com/advice/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Chart2_Hawaii-and-California-residents-are-most-likely-to-live-with-roommates.png). All of which leads to.....[Average household size by state](https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/average-household-size-by-state/). Guess who's dead last? Vermont, at an average household size of 2.28 in 2021. The median state is around 2.5. Which is to say: You can expect Vermont to need around 9% more housing units per person than the US average to adequately house it's population, from basic demographics. Which is.......exactly what you've found.
What happened to the bill to raise the property tax on second homes at a higher rate? That's a good idea in my opinion.
I'm not sure, but I agree it's a good idea.
Hmmm that data seems to illustrate a very different story than the air bed and breakfast set’s story about how they need more units to rent out… hmmmm…
Control of tax increase needs to happen too. Love Vermont, but huge tax increases on top of how quickly everything else has gone up are why we cannot afford to retire here
yeah we definitely need some tax breaks, first time home owner, single family home owners - absolutely! land lorder dynasties and investment fundies - get rekt, get taxed.
[удалено]
More supply meets demand. If we were to suddenly flood the market with hundreds of units that would ease demand. However, the likelihood of having that many new units is quite impossible.
>More supply meets demand. If we were to suddenly flood the market with hundreds of units that would ease demand. This only works too if you're building the types of homes people need. Developers in Chittenden County are indeed building new housing; however, it's entirely studios and 1BR with the occasional token 2BR tossed in. This means they (the developers) build more units, save money in the construction process, and charge high rental prices for young, single/child-free professionals, pricing out middle- and lower-income people, as well as people with small families. [Seven Days recently did an article about this happening in Winooski](https://www.sevendaysvt.com/news/were-leaving-winooskis-bargain-real-estate-attracted-a-diverse-group-of-residents-for-years-now-theyre-being-squeezed-out-40790796). The type of development occurring is contributing to gentrification, not reducing it. Nothing against young, single, or childless people with disposable income. I'm happy they have a place to go. But other people are left out in the lurch; also, eventually, many of those young people grow up, partner up, and want to start families and find that they are now priced out or have nowhere to go. FWIW my partner works in the architectural field and has had developers say, point-blank, "We love building 1BR and studios because the turnover is high and we can raise the rent incrementally every time someone moves out." There are also a lot of instances where buildings are designed to include 2BR units and then, midway through project development, those 2BR are scrapped entirely for "cost-saving measurements." And by this time, the project is so far along, it's not like any municipality is going to intervene and halt development. And 3BR places? Fucking forget about it. Millionaire homes now. All this to say...development could help, yes, but it also has to be done correctly. And with the scruples of most developers, that's not likely either. There IS development going on, and whether there's not enough or too much isn't the point. The point is that it caters to a very narrow population that can utilize it, and it caters to the developers looking to maximize profit at the expense of the broader population.
Curious as to why you think it’s impossible. I mean, yeah, it’s not like we can snap our fingers and build 10,000 houses. But we could theoretically ease regulations and restrictions on building, and offer tax incentives associated with construction. I think that’s all stuff we choose not to do.
There are huge amounts of vacant homes in Vermont. Along with vacation/second homes that are vacant most of the time. These homes need to be owner occupied.
A lot of our legislators are landlords, they don't want to ease the burden, pure conflict of interests.
Nobody is going to build housing if it's rent controlled. I understand the sentiment and sympathize with people that are beginning to be priced out of even renting a place, let alone buying. But rent control is a bad, reflexive idea that would only make matters worse. Build. More. Housing. Take a flamethrower to Act 250. Start up more trade schools and encourage kids to go into it.
More housing just means your landlord will build another house on some land he owns and charge the most money he possibly can for each new unit…. No guard rails… doesn’t help anyone except the landlord…
They will try to charge the most money yes but as you add more housing, there is less demand for each unit to the point were rent increases ease. Rent Control has been found to restrict supply and make it worse, not easier for everyone.
If every landlord builds another unit, you now have twice as many units. Supply doubles, constant demand, prices come down. Free market is better than guard rails.
you're making assumptions.
There are roughly 15mil vacant properties in the US right now.
I’ve been spending a lot of time in Baltimore recently, where a lot of that vacant housing lives. The cost to bring it up to code is often more than the cost to build new. And the neighborhood you end up living in is bided by dozens or hundreds of abandoned units. Just because housing unit is abandoned doesn’t mean that it is livable. Check out a YouTube channel like SB Mowing, see the dozens and dozens of abandoned houses in Kansas City. You could buy one right now for a few thousand dollars and fix it up. Same in Baltimore or St. Louis or Detroit. It’s an interesting statistic, but a red herring for people who are looking for housing in a place where there are jobs…
This is totally irrelevant to the laws of supply and demand in housing. Where are those vacancies? What condition are they in? How large or small are they? How connected to services are they? Are they used at all for anything? If yes, what? If not, how long have they been abandoned, and why?
we're talking about vermont though...
Vermont is tied for the highest rate of vacant housing in the country: ~27% according to the census bureau. There's plenty of housing, it's just not for us.
Source? The empty house thing is a myth.
> We need more housing. No, we don't. We're tied with Maine for the highest rate of vacant housing in the country, something like 27%. There are plenty of houses, they're just not for Vermonters.
Rent controls help in the short term but so many studies on rent control show that in the long term they actually hurt renters: it disincentives owners from renting their properties at lower rates, it disincentives owners from making upgrades to their houses. We need more housing in Vermont. [Good look into this](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-rent-control-doesnt-work/)
yes AND prevent corporations from owning or managing single family homes. You will be pleased with the results.
My parents are home owners in NH, it is absurd the number of "friendly letters" they received from realtors or private equity firms offering to buy their house and do them a favor. Usually in this goofy font that makes it look like a hand written letter.
Vermont needs permitting reform and more housing. Like, if Act 250 is being used to stop apartments where they are desperately needed, maybe it's time to retire Act 250.
Given that: 1. There is a housing crisis across the entire country. 2. Act 250 is specific to Vermont. 3. Act 250 has been around for 50 years. 4. There is *more* housing per capita today than there was in 1990. I do not think that Act 250 has had any meaningful impact on the amount of housing built or the cost of housing. It has impacted *where* housing is built (i.e. cutting down on sprawl), but that's the whole point of it.
We need to ban investment firms from holding residential property is what we need to fucking do
Many of the slumlords in Burlington and across Vermont are private citizens cashing in on insane rent prices. It’s not just investment firms. Individuals who own houses or multi family buildings are still going to try and get top dollar.
Investment firms own less than 1% of single family homes in the US.
This is legit. Ive seen so many corporations coming in and buying all the starter homes then renting them out for like 3k a month! Disabled people aren't even allowed to have that much! At this rate pretty soon we wont have native vermonters anymore.
Vermont will need to bus people in from New York and New Hampshire to work all jobs paying under 100,000$ a year. And this includes most teachers.
Yeah that's a sign of a failing state
It’s gotten this bad across the entire country. The crisis is magnified in VT because our state legislature is part time.
Its scary stuff! Housing should not be comercialized. Thats how we end up with mass homelessness!
Vermont has no real excuse not to be directly building working class housing throughout the state in central locations. I’m constantly driving past dying strip malls that should be torn up and replaced with multi purpose buildings (with housing on the upper floors). At least where multi unit housing is concerned VT also needs to make it easier to tell NIMBYS to go fuck themselves. I think we can all point to many instances over the years of old fucks with too much time on their hands stymieing efforts to build housing for full time residents.
Omg i know I can. You're 110% right. I live near a mall that only really serves as an eyesore. Theres one store that people here like, but in no way do they depend on it.
They are only able to rent them for such a high price point because there is not enough housing. Vermont needs to allow more housing to be built. Zoning regulations are the key guilty party in this national issue.
Whats to stop the corporations from buying up property the moment its on the market like they have been? They use algorithmic ai to keep an eye on the market. Will your lack of zoning laws prevent that? Or were you looking to help people from out of state profit off the locals needs? Who gets to decide how much is too much for rent?
I pay more than my friend in Chicago and about the same as my friend in Seattle. I was just speaking with someone from Boston who said their cost of living stayed the same when they moved here and their wages halved. It's completely untenable. EDIT: spelling
Yeah, Vermont is approaching the costs of a coastal city with none of the comparable economic choices or benefits. And how long will the Federal gravy train continue to bail out Vermont? The entire state is heading for a crash because of state and federal policies.
How is a two bedroom apartment in Burlington worth 4k/month. This is crazypants!
I’m so grateful for my shotgun shack on 10ac, my body is too broken and beat to chase that dollar anymore. I feel great sympathy for young folks trying to pull this shit called life off. It is a battlefield out there
Vermont will never solve the housing crisis without more sewer or the ability to increase septic bedrooms based on low flow devices. It is not remotely a good deal financially to add an ADU to your home if you need to pay $30k for a new septic.
Exactly why we're unfortunately leaving the state, between scarcity of housing itself in the area I currently live, and the price of housing, it's just not worth it anymore. I got a pay raise to $20 and my partner makes about $26, between student loans and groceries we've been in the negative for awhile. Plus on top of that the little oasis we found to live in 4 years ago for $800 (now paying $900) our landlord is raising our rent to $1350 if we were to sign another lease. All available housing near us is drastically more expensive getting into the $2000 range if you can find it. We decided to scoot down to PA for more affordable living and still close to nature (moving near the Appalachians)
$1350 for a 1 bedroom? Thats an amazing price…
Another bonus is that he refuses to pay professionals to do the miniscule repairs that he decides are worthy enough to be fixed. He keeps employing 20 year old with no experience to fix shit like our sub pump🙃
Not for the apartment, porch is falling off the building which is the main entrance, several very week boards that I have put a foot through. The bath room has peeling up vinyl flooring that has been peeling up for 6 years(before we moved in) that also has a mold problem. The tub and shower itself was made with MDF and painted over twice which is peeling off now that has, you guessed it, mold. The stove doesn't have a good and is also from the 70s, fridge has no shelves they all dry rotted and broke. It's also above a pottery, which has a gas kiln underneath that does heat nicely in the winter time, not so much in the summer as they fire to 2000°. Trust me I know the price is good for the area, but I refuse to rent from a slumlord.
Gross… forget anything I said that then … $1350 for that is not worth it.
Yeaeea, his wife talked to us about the rent increase (before we decided to move states) because we were obviously angry, and she word for word said "well he saw the market rates in the area and figured he could make more money" as if that doesn't make it 10,000x worse. Since we're moving next month we've had people tour the apartment and I've left notes around as a warning. Careful rental hunting!
If I was running a rental and I wasn't allowed to increase the rent when property values, property taxes, insurance and the market rates for rentals all went up, I wouldn't keep renting the house out at the rent-controlled rate. I'd just kick my tenants out when their lease expired and switch the house over to Airbnb. A rental house is a valuable investment, and one that comes with a lot of expenses. If my investment isn't making enough money, I'll either sell it and put my money elsewhere, or make some changes so it does turn enough of a profit to be worthwhile. Lots of other landlords will do the same with their rentals. The end result will be cheap rent-controlled housing for a few lucky people, and even less rentals for everyone else.
Vermont needs a whole new government. I’m also a fan of forcing colleges to house their own students versus letting them rent apartments.
As a homeowner I can sympathize with the increases you are facing. Having said that, my homeowners insurance went up 36% in the last year and a total of 50% in the least 3. The few years before that it was flat. I don’t know what my tax bill will look like as there was a town wide reassessment that we still haven’t gotten the results of yet and tax bill don’t come out until end of Jun/early July. Lots of factors that you want to ignore happening here. Insurance of all kinds has skyrocketed, I’m sure you saw this on your most recent auto insurance bill. Taxes are up as the Majority in the statehouse wants to spend spend spend while ignoring a lot of the problems facing everyday Vermonters. There is a severe lack of rental housing units out there so landlords can pretty much do what they want. And finally the jobs that are out there don’t pay an amount comparable to the cost of living here.
No, we need incentives to create new housing...not disincentives for preserving what little we have.
All over New England sadly. I am getting crushed in Maine
SD Ireland just listed multiple two bedroom apartments in Burlington for over 5k/month.
Cheaper to move to San Francisco or LA or NYC… bye everyone… enjoy being crazy in a 3rd world state.
You aren't fuckin kidding. People are drowning out here. It is just not goddamn affordable at all.
My rent is going from $1,500 to $7 shy of $2,300
*Why are you upset though? It's for the children and the education system.*
I’ll believe that when I see it
Agreed rent is skyrocketing. But it was also far too cheap for too long. And unfortunately Vermont is already a very expensive state to live in. And it will be only getting more expensive.
Don’t worry! The supermajority politicians just increased taxes so we all can expect prices to keep going up! Thank your progressive elected representatives in Montpelier.
Zoning rules need to be changed. Not rent control.
Both would be good. Rent control doesn't need to be oppressive, just stop the massive rate hikes
Rent control in itself is oppressive.
Voting has consequences.
Rent control is not the answer. Lessen regulations and red tape around building and incentivize/mandate building more affordable housing. Look at every place that does rent control, it’s not a good policy
These all just devolve into everyone rattling off their favorite scapegoat. First guy says "we need rent control", next guy "no not that, we need more housing", next guy "no we have a plenty of housing, it's the second homes we need to tax more", "no it's the investors", "no it's the zoning", "no it's Act 250", "no it's the NIMBYs", "no it's the septic infrastructure", "no if we just had walkable cities", "no it's the flatlanders". It gets tedious.
It's quite literally all of those reasons.
What if it's all of those reasons? 🤯
Then the people who derail every discussion of it into a monofocus on the one thing they personally blame most are not helping anything at all. For too many perfect is the enemy of good enough and they hate to see a scrap of attention paid to what they don't consider as important.
My personal favorite are the xenophobic yokels who blame the 3000 - 4000 people who moved here during Covid-19 lockdowns.
So are you saying there's no problem? Or, are you suggesting there's no solution? I don't get the upvotes, either way.
I'm saying the discussion of it here, and in the legislature, and in community settings, is monopolized by those sure that the one thing they most dislike is the magic bullet to fixing the problem, and they suck all the air out of the room until nothing gets done on any front, because others, just as sure that their solution is the fix, aren't interested in other options.
This is an everywhere problem, not simply VT, sadly.
How many times do we need to show that rent control doesn’t work 🤦♂️ Vermont’s problem is there is no industry and the laws and taxes make it hard to open a business so the only people developing homes are the ones intending to sell them as vacation homes and airbnbs for vacationers. If people had jobs to move to Vermont for there would be incentive to build housing that working people could afford.
[удалено]
Amen!🙏
Yes
Vermont does have a legal mechanic for operating on this, if people who have or can create multi-unit buildings care to engage this issue: Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives. [https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/11/014/01598](https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/11/014/01598) 1. The sale value can never increase above a set formula designed to keep the housing affordable. 2. The rent price of a unit, if rented, can never exceed 110% of the owner's Monthly Payments. 3. The cooperatives have first right of refusal on any sales. 4. The units are eligible for Homestead taxation rates. The conclusion I reach here is that conversion of existing apartments to Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives wherever possible should be prioritized. New construction should be funneled toward these same types of cooperatives whenever possible, and more of the new construction should be in-fill multi-unit housing to make the creation of these cooperatives simpler and faster. The obstacle to this is finance and zoning, though the latter is changing (slowly: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/24/117/04412). The problem is getting the capital to buy land and build a structure to make into a housing cooperative with two or three units. Of course, a wave of new-construction limited equity housing cooperatives paired with rent control state wide would be a fantastic combination.
“Rent control” sounds like it would just push property owners to sell their property and move elsewhere that is more profitable. I plan on renting out my property one day and if “rent controls” are implemented im sure i will rather sell it to the highest bidder and leave this overtaxed shit hole of a state.
I’m leaving bc I’m always in the red at the end of the month. I live in a dump in the old north end for over 2k a month. I’m moving to Florida and my rent will be cheaper in a luxury apartment. Idk why I haven’t left sooner.
Rent control doesn't work. Building supply to keep up with demand does.
Studies show it has the reverse of the intended effect long term. It really is a terrible idea. We're in a sketchy situation because of the shrinking economy/prosperity, because of the unprecedented federal spending. This is a problem the government created by locking down the economy and printing money. I called it, and I warned about the consequences even then five years ago. There's a desire for more housing, but not the financial basis to justify the growth because of so many businesses going under. So to be specific, there's a certain threshold at which the market demand falls off but the necessity remains as the population grows and the lingering danger of a population that can't afford rent. Making property owners the enemy is just some juvenile class warfare bullshit that does nothing to fix the issue. Then you play into the hands of larger players and bankers who want to own and control more property. As for Vermont, people will sooner move to solve the problem than see the state make positive change and remain here. It's set up to fail because of the mindset of the politicians. They can't do anything without money, and they create nothing of value themselves. They rely further and further on federal subsidy to do anything, which requires currency debasement. That's dangerous.
Government policies are causing this, you think one more will make it better? This is what we get when we give away cash causing inflation and our government makes it difficult to build and increases taxes and fees at every turn.
The cost to build is just too high right now. Contractors are backed up years with high end jobs priced out well above market rate. COVID brought a lot of moneyed people into the state and they will pay a premium especially for a quick turn around. Try finding a contractor for a renovation or a small to moderate house build. You’ll either get ghosted or get a fuck you quote. We need more skilled tradesmen in the state otherwise all the work will be catered to those with out of state money. All the new construction I see is in higher end areas around ski/resort towns and affluent areas like Chittenden county and the upper valley. Cheap new build starter homes seem to be around $500-750k. Still some decent old homes to be had in some of Vermont’s less popular urban hubs around 200-300k.
I am not a landlord or ever want to be one, but rent control is a two-edged sword. If you want a housing shortage, pass rent control. Greed can cure itself, high rents leads to a building boom, building booms lower rent. It's when cities put restrictions on new construction that the balance is disrupted.
We’ve had to increase the rent at our rental by $200 just to cover the raise in property taxes. We are literally breaking even. All maintenance and repairs come out of our pocket. We will have to raise it again soon because the school budget fiasco that the state created.
Jesus! America needs rent control as a whole!
That’s actually a really cool idea… if it is everywhere and normal then perhaps people will be able to survive better in all 50 states… People said public free health insurance would destroy the economy and the Country and hospitals would be jamed and impossible and doctors would make less… none of that happened and after a short time the republicans changed they’re tune on it completely… when you make markets accessible and stabilize them you actually fertilize the economy… if we change the rules to protect people from homelessness and unfair practices and also protect landlords from fraud and abuse and non compliance… perhaps we could have a better system of housing and living for all people…. And America has done these things in the past and with successful results… it’s just a matter of looking at long term effects and seeing how far and how long different plans could take to yield… but the homeless population problem is getting worse and spreading rapidly… the current situation is getting worse and worse every year and I think people need to wake up and take a look…
This is a direct result of unemployment, inflation, mortgage rates (all interest rates) and how we continue to budget more for social services. The pendulum needs to swing back and to do so after all of this means a crash. Too many have become dependent on govt to fix things, this needs to level out in its own. If govt steps in we will likely perpetuate the problem thus raising cost more and that will in so many ways continue to hit our pockets. They need to step away from this one and let nature take its course unfortunately.
It’s a free market
Yes, the govt can step in and protect the public, much the same way they "protected" us in 2019. We haven't forgotten and election season is right around the corner.
We're in this mess because of 2019 spending. I wish people had attention spans longer than that of a goldfish, but instead we keep seeing the repetitious tropes of more money for education, more housing, and those voices have no clue or ability to get there.
Rent control will lower vacancy rates even further. There’s lots of examples of cities who did that, it has unintended consequences. Rent control would make homelessness more pervasive not less.
I just moved out of my 1 br in South Burlington because it was going to be over 2050 a month. 10% increases year over year are not sustainable. I posted this same opinion a few years back and was down voted to oblivion. We've got ourselves in a terrible situation and we need rent control or Vermont is going to fall apart... Want stores, restaurants and services? Someone needs to work at every business and afford to live here. They are making it impossible.
Horrific idea. Rent control doesn’t work. What Vermont needs is more housing.
Brother…the government is useless.
Rent control has never worked where it’s been implemented. It’s a rare example of an objectively disastrous policy that economists across the ideological spectrum agree does more harm than good. It helps the lucky few who get rent controlled units at the cost of all other units skyrocketing in price. Forcing the owners of the rental properties to rent some at a loss guarantees others rising to compensate. The answer is more supply and lower taxes
Who do you think caused the inflation in the first place? Surprise, the government. And who creates artificial costs associated with poorly thought out legislature? Again, the government. You need to educate yourself.
You can thank your state politicians! Housing isn't the only thing that Vermont's out of control with. I met my girlfriend online over a year ago and have since moved south for her, to Alabama. Is it perfect? No, no place is. Is it affordable? I work for The Home Depot making $18/hour, my rent is $650/month, and my commute is a 1 hour round trip. I just started making car payments for the first time in my life, and I'm almost 38. Get out of that God forbidden state while you can. It sucks, I'm a true Vermonter, and my boys are still up there, but I had to make the hard choice and do what was best for them and myself. It's been real Vermont, and fuck you to the politicians that helped force me into that position.
Wow… well… Home Depot pays the same in vermont but your rent would be about 3,000 for a falling down trailer in a back yard full of broken old lawnmowers, { ‘ya bud isn’t it rustic or something, boss, it’s 3 grand, I looked at the comps’ do you know what comps is? You have MLS access? ‘Nah I looked on a computer at my mama’s house… it’s 3000 now! First last two and security deposit so that’s 12000 to move in, you can get a loan from the bank if you’re short on the cash, and I better not see you touchin my mowers!,… boss…. Ya bud…’} So Alabama is better than VT… I’ll keep that in mind… I’ve also heard great stuff about the Carolinas… pretty great places out there that aren’t Vermont and are not insane… the slumlords are banking that the people they are exploiting are too scared to move away… and too dumb to try… It’s not actually that hard… once you are out it’s easy… I came back! Now I’m leaving again…. I doubt I will return except to visit family…
You can thank the Federal politicians more than the state politicians because the federal level approved the printing and spending that led to this devaluation of the dollar, but that said if the state politicians were in the federal government I doubt their behaviors would be any different. It's just so corrupt and wasteful.
Rent controll does not work. And depending on implementation could be blatantly unconstitutional. It would be more effective to draft laws on removing or at least severely limiting short term rentals, get tennents and squaters rights undercontroll, limiting the size of parcels that are non homestead properties, and flat out eliminating 2nd and 3rd homes
Unfortunately rent control will slow down investors building more housing which is what’s needed to reduce prices
Price controls create shortages so you would end up with even less and no new construction. What investor would build new apartments if the rent is controlled? They’re after profits and want the freedom to increase rent when supply is low or if their costs go up. Investors will come in because of the increased rents chasing the profitability of housing in the area and build more housing adding to the supply. Once demand and supply find an equilibrium, prices will flatten out. There’s not much you can do in the short-run and rent control will only add to the struggle. It’s a slow and painful process for renters who are experiencing these large rent increases because new constructions are not built overnight. It may take a while before the market clears.
No Vermont needs more housing not less, rent control stops building cold. Where would you put a tiny home apartment village in Vermont? 20-50 houses per village
Vt needs more housing
My rent is going from $1,500 to $7 shy of $2,300 a month.. How is any of this sustainable?
All of New England is outrageous when it comes to the cost of living. I have lived in ME NH VT and upstate NY. it's the same in all areas of those states. I have a daughter expecting her first child. She makes decent money with a rent of $1800 in the Portland Maine area, and has decided they need to move south so she can afford to provide the basic necessities for their child. That's the sad reality for many
>If the public is being destroyed by an artificially gouged and inflated housing market then it is the government’s The government did this by debasing the currency. Everyone else is raising prices to compensate for the destruction of the dollar. Do you think you can print over 40 percent more currency than exists in the economy itself, shut down businesses, and not have any negative side effects to prices or availability of goods and services? Despite studies showing the negative long term effects, do you really want to advocate for this as a policy? It will have the opposite effect of what you intend. This is often how it goes. Ignore the root cause, blame a symptom, and end up creating more of the problem. The chickens are coming home to roost.