Submitted by DaddyBobMN t3_119x7rv in vermont
appa-ate-momo t1_j9oxqae wrote
I don't see a problem with the vast majority of this. We need to stop living in the days gone by where Vermont can be majority single-family homes and wide open spaces. More people live here now, and we need to be realistic about how to house them.
The people complaining about government control here are off-base. State control of housing is literally the opposite of what caused this problem; a hands-off approach led to developers choosing over and over again to only build luxury properties, leaving the majority of residents with little to no affordable options.
Hagardy t1_j9p7n9e wrote
I’d be happy to go back to the days where we could build similarly to how many downtowns already exist. Many towns are zoned in such a way that if a building burns down it can’t be rebuilt it the same form, even though it’d stood for a hundred years because the zoning has changed.
Instead we’re forcing people to live in the 1950s-70s and claiming it’s to preserve the Vermont of the 1900s
Vermontess t1_j9p573x wrote
Vermont’s laws, regulations, complicated permitting processes, and slow court systems have made being a developer or landlord very expensive here relative to other states. The risk/reward ratio just doesn’t make sense for anything other than luxury housing.
This is only one part of the perfect storm that we find ourselves in, but it is indeed a large part of the problem. Will be really interested to see what they come up with. Hopeful it will make a difference because something needs to be done, even if it’s not perfect at first
-Motor- t1_j9pb7g5 wrote
"risk v reward of luxury housing"? Risk has nothing to do with it; it's just math (profit). Why spend $100 to build something you will sell for $150 when you can build something for $200 and sell for $500?
HeadPen5724 t1_j9ptkf1 wrote
Actually it’s more like spending $200 to build something you can sell for $150 v. Spending $250 on something you can sell for $400.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pehk9 wrote
the risk is whether there is someone who wants to buy that $500 item vs if you had just built two of the $150 item for the same amount of money and definitely had buyers.
it's way more complicated than your simple math equation. of course there's risk for investing in real estate lol.
-Motor- t1_j9peuao wrote
There's more risk in cheap housing. People that can afford a mortgage for a cheap house, can't actually get the bank to lend them the money. I don't see $400k+ pro homes sitting empty.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9pgir3 wrote
do you know why you can see plenty of houses for 300k+ on realtor.com right now, and barely any for 200k under? because the cheap ones are bought up immediately.
anyone who can afford a mortgage for a cheap house can easily get a mortgage. it's really not hard to get a mortgage if you can actually afford the house. i can ACTUALLY AFFORD a sub 200k mortgage, but I've been approved for a 260k mortgage. it is way too easy to get approved for way too much mortgage.
-Motor- t1_j9phdu0 wrote
This is about new construction. That's where your started. Contractors aren't making cheap housing because it's not as profitable for almost as much effort. Period. No one, that isn't on some sort of government funded or outreach/charity endeavor is making cheap housing. And go talk to a realtor or a lender about $90-150k homes and prospective buyers credit. I'm in a family of bankers and mortgage brokers.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9psi6f wrote
> Contractors aren't making cheap housing because it's not as profitable for almost as much effort.
Wrong! Contractors aren't making cheap housing because they literally can't due to current regulations. All condo buildings are luxury because they have to be, it could easily be profitable if there was less regulation around building multi unit mixed use housing in VT.
ElBrazil t1_j9tsico wrote
> Wrong! Contractors aren't making cheap housing because they literally can't due to current regulations.
It doesn't matter. If regulations allowed cheaper housing to be sold at a profit, developers will still target the highest margins first, which is going to be the more expensive units
KITTYONFYRE t1_j9uckft wrote
maybe. at least the option would exist, and no doubt that option would be taken more than its being taken now (ie, never)
wholeWheatButterfly t1_j9qdy60 wrote
The risk is there end up being more regulation on affordable housing because Act 250 comes into play with 10 units or more, and developers are generally going to want to build more than 10 cheap units at once (whether in an apartment building or single family neighborhood). Once Act 250 kicks in, it is a uncertain bureaucratic process which could lead to years of disputes (which adds to cost), and even ultimately shut down the process. It's much easier and less risky to build one or a few luxury houses because it is less regulated.
I think lots of developers would prefer to make 20 cheap homes than spend the same amount on fewer luxury homes, but it's just a risky process with act 250 on top of other permitting and zoning. Making tons of cookie cutter houses or an apartment complex is, in many ways, easier than making a handful of luxury homes, since you can much more easily reuse material and designs.
Agitated_Armadillo13 t1_j9pjbmf wrote
You can just tell us you have no idea what you're talking about instead
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9puja1 wrote
> We need to stop living in the days gone by where Vermont can be majority single-family homes and wide open spaces
I agree about the single-family homes, but we absolutely must keep the wide-open spaces.
cpujockey t1_j9vi83y wrote
> I agree about the single-family homes
but I hate hearing my neighbors. I like wood working, running CNC machines, and playing my guitar loud. Can't do that in a giant people box.
kellogsmalone t1_ja2u8yv wrote
I mean, you can...you might just need to ensure complaints :)
cpujockey t1_ja2wqqk wrote
Complaints get expensive and end up pissing off land lords. Ain't no way I can risk that in this housing shortage.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9vstff wrote
I completely agree. I suppose we should be able to make the dense places denser (if people living there want that) without requiring density, or even worse, making wide-open spaces into people boxes.
ceiffhikare t1_j9qkfl1 wrote
There is more than enough land already locked up forever in trusts and preservation deals,lol. Every town could easily add another 5% in new housing and it would hardly change the landscape. Dont worry it will still look pretty for the damn tourists.
you_give_me_coupon t1_j9qsdu5 wrote
The tourists can go fuck themselves, I want it pretty for me and mine.
Vermontess t1_j9qvp12 wrote
FWIW Vermont ranks 25th for public lands In the country
kellogsmalone t1_ja2uaz7 wrote
How is this measured. Percentage of land preserved?
Vermontess t1_ja3d48q wrote
Yup
cpujockey t1_j9vhypk wrote
> single-family homes
i like my single family home though. hopefully those units never go out of style and the those big people boxes can be built where people want them.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9pt7h3 wrote
Actually our population is declining… and single family homes are still necessary and important, not everyone wants to live in a City. Government regulations made developing a property a 6 figure gamble on whether you may or may not get permits… that means developers need to make up that money. If the state got out of the way, developers could afford to build houses that coulld be sold cheaper since they didn’t need to cough up a million dollars just to get permits.
joementumsa t1_j9q5dnh wrote
Vermont's population increased between the 2010 and 2020 censuses and is estimated to be continuing to increase YoY since then.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9q992r wrote
Due to the influx of covid transplants… give it time and it will go back down again. From 20011 to 2019 it was all decline…
Aoe330 t1_j9qd1jd wrote
Yeah, I don't think they're leaving. Like, ever. They found out about what it's like not living in a city, and they don't seem to want to go back.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9qko3t wrote
This is like the third time this has happened in my lifetime. Maybe this time will be different 🤷🏼♂️
kosmonautinVT t1_j9sow60 wrote
Climate change says hello and welcome to Vermont
Will make COVID transplants look like nothing
Harmacc t1_j9y6k4k wrote
That’s pretty much why I’m here. Used to live out west. Trying to beat the crowds.
Loudergood t1_j9wi5be wrote
The census finished right as COVID started to take off.
Kiernanstrat t1_j9qxyqj wrote
Your opening statement is easily refuted with a simple google search. Population leveled off between 2000 and 2020 but still increased by around 15,000 residents.
HeadPen5724 t1_j9r3ns9 wrote
The state says it declined from 2011 -2019 and then bounced up… because covid. Sometimes two data points don’t really tell the whole story.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments