Submitted by FearandLoathinginBTV t3_10sk9y8 in vermont
Comments
clonezilla t1_j72k4df wrote
Sadly I’m not surprised. I know people and also been personally burdened by landlords increasing rent way beyond reasonable means for the local average income.
kraysys t1_j757r72 wrote
Landlords don’t set the rent to the average local income, they set it to what they can get for it. We desperately need to build more housing.
[deleted] t1_j74erfq wrote
[deleted]
Legitimate_Proof t1_j74g7nf wrote
We could allow more, but people love to say NIMBY is the problem. In this case, how did people blocking new construction make more people homeless?
Those people were housed somewhere that they aren't any more. They weren't housed in housing that wasn't built. Converting apartments to AirBNBs or jacking the rent because fewer apartments are available is a more likely cause of this increase.
That people have no other options and that rent can be so high can be blamed on NIMBY, but I don't believe building more will help without other changes. Why wouldn't owners of new housing change high rent and make some AirBNBs too? More money for owners but no change for people who need lower cost housing.
Fabulousfemur t1_j74mu0u wrote
I built a solar field on star farm road a few years ago. The landowner wanted to build an apartment building, but the city was fighting it, so he had an array built because it was less of a struggle.
It also seems that new construction apartments are built for section 8 or 55+.
Legitimate_Proof t1_j76dbmy wrote
That site was a wetland and even the solar racking had to make special accommodation of that. The fact that housing couldn't be built there wasn't because of NIMBY.
New apartments are Section 8? Which ones? In Burlington, the new affordable housing I'm aware of is only what is required by the City's inclusionary zoning when market rate housing is built.
cpujockey t1_j76esv2 wrote
The section 8 and 55 plus crowd are the ones that are desperately hurting.
kraysys t1_j757vq2 wrote
Why don’t you believe building more housing would decrease the cost of housing? Very simple economic laws of supply and demand.
Legitimate_Proof t1_j76efp5 wrote
That over simplified "law" would only be true is housing were a commodity and everyone had access to all the market info. Then if we built a noticeable oversupply of housing, prices would fall.
Housing is not really a commodity and we are building mostly for the high end of the market. A small study was done after several new projects were built in my Burlington ONE neighborhood and the average rent in the area went up, not down! Basically the new apartments came in with significantly higher rent and advertised how fancy they were. Other apartments increased their rental price to be near, but significantly lower than the new ones. The cost of new construction is so much higher than the cost of an apartment in an older building that is paid off, that there's plenty of room for new construction to pull up rent prices.
Burlington has added around 1000 new apartments in the past several years, and the increase in rent has sped up. I think part of the problem is that it would require maybe 10x as much new construction to make a noticeable oversupply, and the market would build an oversupply if it can help it. So we have to have policies on existing buildings, like restricting short term rentals like Burlington did, increasing the tax preference for owner-occupied, etc.
What has changed over the past few years when the cost of housing was increasing was not an increase in population or decrease in supply as that simple economic idea would suggest. It was a change in who owns housing and their profit expectations. The tripling of the share of single family homes that are owned by investors was likely a big cause.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j79tkr2 wrote
Any housing we build would be bought by the people and entities currently buying it: out-of-state gentrifiers, third home-owners, airbnb speculators, and private equity ghouls. It certainly wouldn't be bought by the people I know who are currently getting priced out of their rentals.
Building housing could be a good idea if we guaranteed, or at least incentivized, its use by regular Vermonters who need places to live. We could do that, but our leadership won't. They want poor Vermonters out.
ceiffhikare t1_j720hbc wrote
Gosh if only there was a worldwide organization that was all about serving the poor and had property in nearly every town and village. Guess such groups if they exist have other priorities though, too bad. it would be great PR.
contrary-contrarian t1_j724rya wrote
Yeah but how could there possibly be an organization like that? It's not like every single town in Vermont has big buildings with tons of available space and the organizations that run them are tax free...
Also, even if there were it's not like those organizations literally state their mission is to help people, serve the poor and needy, and welcome all comers.
Oh wait.....
PPOKEZ t1_j738rm8 wrote
It would never work. An organization with that much power and moral influence would immediately become a highly networked cult embedded at every level of authority constantly trying to sway political decisions even though it goes against their nonprofit status.
contrary-contrarian t1_j73d7dk wrote
Thank science that just isn't possible! I'd be very worried if there was some international group forcing politicians to pledge allegiance to them over any other moral or philosophical code and ensuring our country (and others) are run according to some cultish ideals.
TheTowerBard t1_j729hzh wrote
True. It’d also be great PR for our own government if they helped folks. Like, actual help.
ceiffhikare t1_j72chbg wrote
Well its not like The General Welfare is declared anywhere in our founding docu...Oh! Well that's awkward,lol.
TheTowerBard t1_j72hd0k wrote
Whoops! It’s doubly good that so many constitutionalists don’t belong to a religion that demands they help the… oh wait, what’s that? They don’t actually follow Jesus’s teachings outside of Sunday mornings? That’s crazy.
ceiffhikare t1_j72kwxd wrote
Yeah i think the table-flipping Jesus would have a word or two for the christian conservatives of today. we would live in an almost utopia if both Americans in general and Christians lived up to the mythology they are raised on.
TheTowerBard t1_j72qs9e wrote
Amen 🙏
Galadrond t1_j79eb7r wrote
Here I was thinking Vermonters should reach out to Habitat for Humanity.
ceiffhikare t1_j79jq85 wrote
IIRC they require folks to have something like $30K/year for HFH to help in addition to the sweat equity. That part is buried in the details though and not part of the PR hype around them. Still not a bad group but you are right, the religious affiliation makes it..well good people doing good deeds for their own reasons ..not just because its the Right thing to do.
ojhatsman t1_j72swqt wrote
Rich people gotta go or play along. Make snow birds claim their main residency as VT to avoid getting slapped with a large tax (which would help fund public housing projects). Ban huge companies that are hoarding properties from operating in VT unless the business identifies VT as the state that they’re based out of. Tax the energy companies that spike the price of oil/gas in the winter. Create more public transport (buses, trains, and even sidewalks) so Vermonters don’t need to rely on a car. We have possibilities.
headgasketidiot t1_j727xju wrote
Build public housing. Ban Airbnbs.
Mr-Bovine_Joni t1_j72xbqs wrote
Literally just building more market rate housing and this will improve in time
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j73r5hd wrote
My understanding is once you get through the NIMBY Act 250 lawsuits, the only feasible build is Mc Mansions.
ThisIsSabby t1_j73x9dg wrote
Between the subdivision restrictions of Act 250, wastewater permitting, and town zoning, it’s much easier (legally-speaking) to build a vacation house on 10 acres of pristine woods than it is to build missing middle housing in town and village centers. The irony is that this encourages and incentivizes sprawl as people build further afield, have big lot sizes (for non-ag use), and clear cut forest to establish views.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j73xz4a wrote
Exactly. And expecting the cranks in Montpelier to understand that, let alone fix it, is crazy, in my opinion.
Dangerous_Mention_15 t1_j74q2oc wrote
Exactly. The solution is staring the politicians in the face and they keep reaching for something else.
Why AirBnB? What else does Vermont have to offer? It's like a Yankee theme park of failing farms and few jobs.
Affordable housing is being able to purchase a house using a conventional loan on the open market. Income x 3-4 will be your max price. Reducing regulations and allowing for higher density housing (which allows for municipal water, sewer, and gas as well as cheaper electricity connections) will all shift the cost curve down. Even a sales tax reduction will save (e.g. Williston VT has a total sales tax of 7% vs NH where those same materials would be ~7% cheaper).
contrary-contrarian t1_j725816 wrote
We've gotta build more housing. Homelessness is largely a product of an impossible housing market.
Tell your representatives and senators you want them to support the housing bills in the legislature to make it easier to build in Vermont's towns and cities.
TheTowerBard t1_j729rcw wrote
Affordable housing and jobs that pay a living wage. You know, the extreme bare minimum of the American dream. Is that too much to ask?
Dangerous_Mention_15 t1_j74qheh wrote
Yes. The poors aren't welcome here. Go where you're wanted.
That sounds harsh but it's true. The policies of this state make lower income living near Burlington/Stowe/Upper Valley nearly impossible while finding a decent job outside those areas is not easy. Unless you like Rutland:(
​
For some reason I can't reply to the comment below (thank you reddit!), but I can edit my comment, so I'll use that as a reply.
People can leave - bus tickets are cheap, the USA is a gigantic country and there are lots of places that are more hospitable to lower income levels (e.g. you can earn a decent living, find solid blue collar to lower end white collar work, buy a house, and have a decent community. I have lived and worked a number of them.
The "can't" mentality is self fulfilling, but at least several of your ancestors didn't have that mindset and they had to overcome massive obstacles, some of which included the Bering Land Bridge, an ice age, and giant short faced bears... or one could get a Greyhound ticket...
Greenlettertam t1_j76aey4 wrote
The “poors” cannot just “leave”. The money required to do so is cost prohibitive. Also, finding work with the current public transportation system is tough too.
The “poors” are stuck here.
I understand your post and you’re right, but the housing crisis is a reality in many states. Here, one is more likely to freeze to death without a home. I believe that makes it a tad more urgent.
I think you feel the same way.
TheTowerBard t1_j74qu0b wrote
Well aren’t you cute. No offense, but this is the shit that’s not wanted, nor welcome here. Piss off.
SevenSparrowsSing t1_j729vzs wrote
Yes but housing also needs to be cheaper and there needs to be laws that only full-time Vermonters, buying their ONLY home, can live there. Otherwise it will just get snatched up by the wealthy again.
FearandLoathinginBTV OP t1_j72c1zl wrote
You probably can’t do that explicitly, but maybe they could implement a “Use Tax” where if you don’t personally occupy your home from October - April your property tax is increased by 100% or something similar.
mrwalrus88 t1_j748v3u wrote
I love the tax the hell out of second homes idea. And it boggles my mind why it isn't done. If we lose some rich people in the process we gain residents who pay income tax and spend their salary in the community.
WhatTheCluck802 t1_j7e2as9 wrote
YES - 💯
landodk t1_j73xmk3 wrote
Unfortunately for second homes it’s a race to the bottom. Want to buy a second house near Stowe or Killington? Tax rate would definitely be a consideration
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j748sji wrote
There's no way I've ever heard of to prevent that from going to the work from home crowd.
FearandLoathinginBTV OP t1_j728rft wrote
In my opinion, since this has been a long running issue and there is legislative super-majority in Vt right now, if there is no major moves towards resolving the issue during this General assemblies term then every current Statewide and General Assembly elected official should be up for replacement.
There’s too much federal money floating around in the State’s hands for there to so little progress on this issue.
contrary-contrarian t1_j72fcsl wrote
Many people have been calling for wider investments in housing for a decade or more before this came to a head. The governor has vetoed measures that would have aided the crises already.
There are folks fighting the good fight but I agree the obstructionists need to go.
HillRatch t1_j74d6f9 wrote
The entire state legislature and governor are up for replacement every two years, regardless of what they do or don't do.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j71wanv wrote
One thing I wish they would take a true census on is how many homeless came into the state for the hotel rooms. I’m not saying this to minimize the problems, but it irks me that in two hotels I know of that are part of the state program for homeless are sheltering a decent amount out of state homeless people. Just sucks that in an overtaxed and relatively poor state we are spending our tax money on other states problems (when I say problems I’m not referring to the homeless people themselves, but the underlying conditions that got them to that point)
headgasketidiot t1_j72aomb wrote
It's interesting that in recognizing the very real resource constraints, the first place you think to look to tighten the belt is how many of the homeless are from another state.
These sketchy motels are just privatizing public housing. They provide unstable, incredibly low quality housing, and they're really expensive. Why do we allow for-profit motels that are otherwise nonviable businesses to survive by siphoning money from state coffers intended to house those in need? It's so wildly inefficient, and yet for some reason we accept it as - I don't even know what to put here - the best we can do? The "proper" role of government?
Let's have proper public housing. Instead of leaving our neighbors down on their luck in gross motels on and off without kitchens or reliable sources of transportation, let's give them a real chance to get back on their feet, and save money while doing it.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j74xan4 wrote
I missed this comment earlier. Just to clarify (again), I went there because it’s an article talking about the dramatic rise in homelessness in Vermont. I wonder how much of that rise in the homeless population in Vermont is due to people moving in to take advantage of the housing voucher program.
TheTowerBard t1_j71xft1 wrote
Homeless people move around. That’s why when we discuss the issue in places like California and Florida, we often recognize that those are national issues, not just local issues there. Folks from all over the country migrate to warmer places in the winter. They also migrate back. They would often prefer to find a way to live in communities they are familiar with, hence someone from the northeast doing anything they can to stay in the northeast and not have to travel south every winter.
Anyway, all of this to say that we need to somehow get over being locked down by invisible man made lines in the ground and just help people. The homeless issues is a national one.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j71zuab wrote
Yeah I’d support some national measures for sure. Vermont was never a migration area for homeless people until the Covid era free hotels, hence my comment. Since we’ve started that program we’ve seen an unprecedented increase in homeless in Vermont. Nationally it’s a complicated issue and I’ve never seen coherent policies, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support something.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j7206o6 wrote
Also, I agree with the sentiment about helping people regardless of invisible lines, but in a small state with limited resources it sucks to see something implemented with good intentions to help a serious problem in our state, be taken advantage of and overrun by people coming in.
On a national level I agree, we need to help people 1000%
[deleted] t1_j72umea wrote
I agree with your point. I also think the hotel/motel owners are taking far more advantage of this terrible situation than the homeless themselves... A lot of these owners are making HUGE profits from these voucher programs and they do not re-invest any of those profits back into their hotels/motels to improve the living conditions of their tenants. The owners have little to no oversight of their operations by the State, and the conditions in most of these motels are deplorable and unsafe. The towns are powerless to impose any penalties against these apparent slumlords and, so far, the State seems unwilling to provide the framework for any oversight or accountability... The volume of homeless wouldn't be as much of an issue if there was better implementation of the help we are trying to provide.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j74vc9q wrote
Absolutely. Honestly I don’t blame anybody taking advantage of the program, I blame the program itself. As you said, there is very little oversight on this situation. The hotels are disgusting, there is no requirement that those enrolled in the voucher system is in any program to better themselves, it’s bad for our community, the homeless it’s attempting to help, and a pathetic waste of tax dollars
headgasketidiot t1_j72o1j7 wrote
Do you have actual evidence to back this suspicion, or are you speculating?
Also, I get what you're saying, but if you're a homeless person, you go anywhere you can to get of the cold. That seems like a needlessly accusatory way to think about what literally anyone would and should do facing that situation.
edit: Upon further reflection, I actually don't get what you're saying. What does it even mean for someone without a home to not be a Vermonter? If a homeless person moves to Vermont, they're Vermonters now. That's how being American works; there's no immigration policy at state borders. It's not taking advantage of anything to move to another state where you might not die of exposure - it's literally each of our birthright as Americans to move freely between states.
So what would the census accomplish? How would you even do it? What does it mean for a person with no home to be an out of stater, when all their earthly belongings are here? Are you going to ask them for a bill to prove their residency in Vermont or something?
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j737dof wrote
Okay so in the last two years Vermont’s homeless population has exploded, making us the second highest per capita. Also in the past two years we’ve started giving vouchers out for free hotel rooms. Homeless people have moved into Vermont to take advantage of this at high amounts. I would like to see an actual report of how much this has happened. Is our growth in homeless people been solely or predominantly immigrants from other states?
I know of two hotels where the majority of the people there have moved to Vermont to take advantage of this program. I don’t have any evidence to say how much that reflects the rest of the state. I was saying it would be nice if we could get that information.
headgasketidiot t1_j73qcvl wrote
If it is the case that people are moving here to use our hotel program, it would make me genuinely proud to be a Vermonter. Times are tough and I'd appreciate a lower tax bill, but I seriously can't think of anything I'm more happy to pay taxes for than housing people who need it, regardless of where they're from. I hope I don't ever personally need that help, but many (most?) people are just an accident or diagnosis away from homelessness.
Your other comments:
>I don’t agree with giving free hotel rooms on our dime to people who came here for that.
I do, and I urge you to reconsider. It's just the right thing to do. Is it fair to us? No. Do I care? Yes, but not enough to deny shelter to people as I type this from my wood stove while the temperature plummets to -20 outside.
Vermont currently pays about as much in all public assistance as it does for prisons. The homeless vouchers are an absolutely tiny part of our budget. Instead of cutting the budget by refusing housing to the desperate, let's look at the parts of our budget that keeps poor people in jail just because they can't afford bail and cut it there. This part of our budget is doing good things.
>And actually to get your license/residency in VT I think you do need a bill now for your proof of residency, but I could be wrong.
If you were to implement a residency requirement for these vouchers, you're going to end up refusing housing to the homeless from Vermont. It is a well documented problem that they lack the necessary paperwork to interact with government bureaucracy. Many of them don't have licenses or bills or other proof of residency because they do not have residences.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j74rpzv wrote
Well I would say we fundamentally disagree on this. I do appreciate your sentiment and think your heart is in the right place. I would recommend volunteering and donating money to credible charities instead of pushing for our local taxes to support people moving in to the state for the soul purpose of the Covid housing vouchers.
State and Local taxes are for our communities. We have enough underfunded programs in the state to worry about before spending it on people who have never been a member of our communities. I’m not coming at this from some heartless aspect of it either, I’ve participated in many church fundraisers for community projects addressing these issues, I’m also a volunteer fire fighter and have been involved with setting up warming shelters. I’m just not okay with the idea of our state taxes going to fund programs that are incentivizing people to move in to take advantage of said programs.
Also, the reason why I said my comment on needing to show a bill to attain residency was in direct response to your comment “are you going to ask them to show a bill to prove their residency” honestly, i do not think these housing vouchers ever should have existed. There are much more effective ways to tackle homelessness than providing no strings attached hotel rooms. It’s not healthy for our communities, the homeless people receiving those vouchers, as well as our budget.
headgasketidiot t1_j758nnh wrote
I fundamentally disagree with you that those people aren't part of our communities. They're living here. To actively reject them from our community for the sole purpose of denying them housing is cruel.
To put it another way, if those same people moved here and didn't need housing, we wouldn't be saying they're not members of our community. I don't want to be part of a state that specifically defines community to exclude people for their poverty. That's gross.
As for your suggestions to work with relevant organizations, that is what I do. I work mostly with human rights nonprofits. My experience there taught me that until we learn to organize our society around the things that actually matter -- camaraderie, friendship, mutual aid, etc -- this problem and those like it will always plague us. If we continue to organize ourselves around money and violence, like we do now, we'll always be able to think of the things that matter as being someone else's job, like a charity's (which everyone knows will never have the resources they need to really fix problems), therefore absolving us of guilt while we callously argue that some of the homeless who are in our community do not deserve shelter because they're not really members of our community.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j75e8z5 wrote
Well let’s agree to disagree.
And idk, takes quite a few years for me to accept someone as part of the community regardless. Shit, I moved from Chelsea to Marshfield 2 years ago and I’m an outsider here, 30 minutes away from my home town 😂
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j73ccdk wrote
And furthermore, for how you do it, simply just ask when they moved to VT when they get their vouchers. Personally I think right from the beginning that we shouldn’t have done this program for anybody that wasn’t a current Vermont resident. We have enough issues in our state, that as much as I feel for anybody that’s homeless, I don’t agree with giving free hotel rooms on our dime to people who came here for that. I do think we need to help our existing homeless population, but there has to be a way to do that without incentivizing more homeless people relocating here.
Outrageous-Outside61 t1_j73bpf9 wrote
And actually to get your license/residency in VT I think you do need a bill now for your proof of residency, but I could be wrong.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j749884 wrote
It is definitely true that we are housing people from NY, MA, and NH because it's easy to get a room here. It was in testimony in the legislature recently from one of the Rutland homeless advocates.
TheTowerBard t1_j74bjs6 wrote
Oh for sure. I’m not suggesting that’s not true. I’m saying that OF COURSE there are homeless folks here that aren’t from here. There are homeless folks everywhere that aren’t from there. They move to places where they can manage to get by. Often that means a warmer part of the country in the winter, but if they can stay closer to where they are from and not have to take a bus all the way to Florida just so they don’t freeze to death in the winter, they will. Again, this is why this is a national issue and not a local issue. We need to stop thinking of it as such.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j74eatr wrote
The issue the advocate was talking about was how ending homelessness in vermont is daunting. It's much tougher to end homelessness in NH, NY and MA as well. He has a point. My understanding is a lot of the homeless in california are from red states. Many places criminalize homelessness like towns in florida are doing. So when a state offers any sort of benefits or is warm or is warm and offers benefits like california they are flooded with homeless people. More than they can reasonably be expected to deal with. It does seem that vermont is experiencing that to some degree and it does make ultimately finding housing for all of these people much more difficult.
WheezeThaJuice t1_j73lmmi wrote
Meanwhile, another new AirBNB just popped up next door
Odd-Philosopher5926 t1_j74otcy wrote
Air bibs should be illegal in Vermont. Also second homes should be taxed at 2X. New residents should also share the burden as them moving here usually means someone else got displaced
Bernthewalldown t1_j73cgly wrote
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j749hs7 wrote
It's the legislature. I remember an article in the digger where an Addison county rep didn't want more housing. She said she didn't want to go to bed in VT and wake up in New Jersey. Guess where she's from.
LetsGoHome t1_j72zouf wrote
This is the result of no rent control.
Galadrond t1_j79er3q wrote
No rent control, surge of airbnbs/short term rentals, corporate ownership of housing stemming from all those stolen PPP loans…
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j73s14f wrote
Not even a little. It years of bad policy (Act 250), years of NIMBYism and then rapid gentrification since 2020.
ninjamansidekick t1_j73o373 wrote
Rent control dis incentivizes real estate development and leads to housing shortages. The focus should be on increasing taxes on second homes that are single family dwellings. This would help inventories for primary residents, but not disincentivizes investment in multifamily projects.
Illustrious-Yard-144 t1_j71ta6f wrote
I really hope we can find a cohesive solution one day
DCtoMe t1_j734b2r wrote
We already have one. It is to build more market rate housing in desireable locations where people want to live. That is the only long-term nationwide sustainable solution to the housing crisis.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_j73rr8v wrote
And then watch them become Air Bn Bs or be bought up by hedge funds. NIMBYism has definitely hurt housing very badly but America's predilection for allowing rich people to fuck everyone else over hasn't helped.
[deleted] t1_j71ucki wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j71uf3o wrote
[deleted]
RandolphCarter15 t1_j749k17 wrote
I love how this article somehow turned to an attack on organized religion. Easier to attack people already doing a lot than to actually help
[deleted] t1_j74epdg wrote
[deleted]
kraysys t1_j758cmi wrote
Another thread related to the insane cost of housing in Vermont, and another thread full of comments with people trying to focus the blame on other factors or only half-heartedly support building new desperately needed housing.
pjdog603 t1_j7207yh wrote
“The state’s overall percentage increase in homelessness from 2020 to 2022 was the highest in the nation.”